R. Reber and Perruchet (this issue) argue that use of control groups without training is unsound for establishing that learning has occurred. We show that inferring learning from a difference between a trained group and an untrained control in no way relies on their implausible additivity assumption, and that untrained control groups can be an invaluable aid to the researcher.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannG.DienesZ.GoodeA. (1995). On the modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 899–912.
2.
BerryD. C.DienesZ. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issuesHove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
3.
CleeremansA. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning: Connectionist models of sequence processingCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
DienesZ. (1992). Connectionist and memory array models of artificial grammar learning.Cognitive Science16, 41–79.
5.
DienesZ.AltmannG.GaoS.-J. (1999). Mapping across domains without feedback:A neural network model of implicit learning.Cognitive Science23, 53–82.
6.
DienesZ.FaheyR. (1995). The role of specific instances in controlling a dynamic system.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 848–862.
7.
DienesZ.FaheyR. (1998). The role of implicit memory in controlling a dynamic system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology51A, 593–614.
8.
DienesZ.KurzA.BernhauptR.PernerJ. (1997). Application of implicit knowledge: Deterministic or probabilistic?.Psychologica Belgica37, 89–112.
9.
DienesZ.PernerJ.Unifying consciousness with explicit knowledge.The unity of consciousness: binding, integration, and dissociation.CleeremansA.Oxford: Oxford University Pressin press.
10.
DulanyD. E.CarlsonR.DeweyG. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgement: How concrete and how abstract?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113, 541–555.
11.
GujaratiD. N. (1995). Basic econometrics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw–Hill.
12.
JohnstoneT.ShanksD. R. (1999). Two mechanisms in implicit artificial grammar learning? Comment on Meulemans and van der Linden (1997).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 524–531.
13.
KinderA.ShanksD. R. (2001). Amnesia and the declarative/procedural distinction: A recurrent network model of classification, recognition, and repetition priming.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience13, 648–669.
14.
McAndrewsM. P.MoscovitchM. (1985). Rule-based and exemplar-based classification in artificial grammar learning.Memory and Cognition13, 469–475.
15.
PerruchetP.PacteauC. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119, 264–275.
16.
ReberA. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour6, 855–863.
17.
RedingtonM.ChaterN. (1996). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: A re-evaluation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General125, 123–138.
18.
Servan-SchreiberE.AndersonJ. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16, 592–608.
19.
SunR. (2002). Duality of the mind: A bottom up approach to cognitionLondon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
20.
TunneyR. J.AltmannG. T. M. (1999). The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: Re-appraising the evidence on the transfer of sequential dependencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 1322–1333.
21.
TunneyR. J.AltmannG. T. M. (2001). Two modes of transfer in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 614–639.
22.
VokeyJ. R.BrooksL. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18, 328–344.
