When learning new words, listeners must contend with multiple sources of ambiguity and variability. Research has revealed that learners can resolve referential ambiguity by tracking co-occurrence statistics between words and their referents across multiple exposures over time—a process termed cross-situational word learning (XSWL). However, the degree to which variability in the input, such as input from multiple speakers, and variability in learner experience, such as bilingual language experience, modulate XSWL remains unclear. In this study, we examined the effects of speaker variability in XSWL performance in monolingual adults and bilingual adults with a range of second language backgrounds and language acquisition histories. Results revealed above-chance word learning in both the single and the multiple-speaker conditions across language groups. An advantage for word learning was observed in the single-speaker condition, but the effects of bilingual language experience were null. This research adds to the limited body of work dedicated to extending theories of statistical learning to account for variations in both input and learner characteristics as well as their interactions.
AddlemanD. A.TaoJ.RemingtonR. W.JiangY. V. (2018). Explicit goal-driven attention, unlike implicitly learned attention, spreads to secondary tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(3), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000457
2.
AdesopeO. O.LavinT.ThompsonT.UngerleiderC. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803
3.
AntoniouM.LiangE.EttlingerM.WongP. (2015). The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000777
4.
ApfelbaumK. S.McMurrayB. (2011). Using variability to guide dimensional weighting: Associative mechanisms in early word learning. Cognitive Science, 35(6), 1105–1138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01181.x
5.
BarcroftJ.SommersM. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050175
6.
BarcroftJ.SommersM. S. (2014). Effects of variability in fundamental frequency on l2 vocabulary learning: A comparison between learners who do and do not speak a tone language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 423–449. https://10.1017/S0272263113000582
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BenitezV. L.YurovskyD.SmithL. B. (2016). Competition between multiple words for a referent in cross-situational word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.004
9.
BjorkE. L.BjorkR. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In GernsbacherM. A.PewR. W.HoughL. M.PomerantzJ. R. (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
10.
BjorkE. L.BjorkR. A. (2014). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In GernsbacherM. A.PomerantzJ. (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (2nd ed., pp. 59–68). Worth.
11.
BjorkR. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In MetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.
12.
BjorkR. A.BjorkE. L. (2020). Desirable difficulties in theory and practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.003
13.
BourneL. E.JrRestleF. (1959). Mathematical theory of concept identification. Psychological review, 66(5), 278.
14.
BradlowA. R.Akahane-YamadaR.PisoniD. B.TohkuraY. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206911
15.
BrauerM.CurtinJ. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159
BushR. R.MostellerF. (1951). A model for stimulus generalization and discrimination. Psychological Review, 58(6), 413.
18.
ChanJ.MonaghanP. (2019). Simulating bilingual word learning: Monolingual and bilingual adults’ use of cross-situational statistics. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 41, pp. 1472–1478). Cognitive Science Society.
ChoiJ. Y.HuE. R.PerrachioneT. K. (2018). Varying acoustic-phonemic ambiguity reveals that talker normalization is obligatory in speech processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 784–797. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1395
21.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B. (2004). Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Language and Speech, 47(3), 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470030101
CrespoK.KaushanskayaM. (2021). Is 10 better than 1? The effect of speaker variability on children’s cross-situational word learning. Language Learning and Development, 17(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1906680
24.
CrespoK.VlachH.KaushanskayaM. (2023). The effects of bilingualism on children’s cross-situational word learning under different variability conditions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 229, 105621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105621
25.
CrespoK.VlachH.KaushanskayaM. (2024). The effects of speaker and exemplar variability in children’s cross-situational word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31, 1650–1660. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02444-6
26.
de BruinA.TreccaniB.Della SalaS. (2015). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias?Psychological Science, 26(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557866
27.
EscuderoP.MulakK. E.FuC. S.SinghL. (2016). More limitations to monolingualism: Bilinguals outperform monolinguals in implicit word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01218
28.
EscuderoP.MulakK. E.VlachH. A. (2016). Infants encode phonetic detail during cross-situational word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1419.
29.
GibsonJ. J.GibsonE. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment?Psychological Review, 62(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048826
30.
GoldingerS. D.PisoniD. B.LoganJ. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.152
31.
GuptaP.LipinskiJ.AbbsB.LinP. H.AktuncE.LuddenD.MartinN.NewmanR. (2004). Space aliens and nonwords: Stimuli for investigating the learning of novel word-meaning pairs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 599–603.
32.
HilcheyM. D.KleinR. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 625–658. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0116-7
33.
HorstJ. S.HoutM. C. (2016). The Novel Object and Unusual Name (NOUN)database: A collection of novel images for use in experimental research. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1393–1409. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0647-3
34.
Huang-PollockC.MaddoxW. T.KaralunasS. L. (2011). Development of implicit and explicit category learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.002
35.
KachergisG.YuC.ShiffrinR. M. (2014). Cross-situational word learning is both implicit and strategic. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00588
36.
KapadiaA. M.PerrachioneT. K. (2020). Selecting among competing models of talker adaptation: Attention, cognition, and memory in speech processing efficiency. Cognition, 204, Article 104393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104393
37.
KrizmanJ.MarianV.ShookA.SkoeE.KrausN. (2012). Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(20), 7877–7881. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201575109
LiY.BenitezV. L. (2023). Lexical tone as a cue in statistical word learning from bilingual input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000858
41.
LimS.-J.CarterY. D.NjorogeJ. M.Shinn-CunninghamB. G.PerrachioneT. K. (2021). Talker discontinuity disrupts attention to speech: Evidence from EEG and pupillometry. Brain and Language, 221, Article 104996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104996
42.
LimS.-J.Shinn-CunninghamB. G.PerrachioneT. K. (2019). Effects of talker continuity and speech rate on auditory working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(4), 1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01684-w
43.
LivelyS. E.PisoniD. B.YamadaR. A.TohkuraY.YamadaT. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(4), 2076–2087. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410149
LuthraS.SaltzmanD.MyersE. B.MagnusonJ. S. (2021). Listener expectations and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability: A pre-registered replication. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(6), 2367–2376. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02317-x
46.
MagnusonJ. S.NusbaumH. C. (2007). Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.391
47.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
48.
MartonF. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. Routledge.
49.
MuenchK. L.CreelS. C. (2013). Gradient phonological inconsistency affects vocabulary learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1585–1600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032862
50.
MulakK. E.VlachH. A.EscuderoP. (2019). Cross-situational learning of phonologically overlapping words across degrees of ambiguity. Cognitive Science, 43(5), Article e12731. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12731
51.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 47(4), 379–390.
52.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B.MartinC. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(1), 365–378.
53.
NeveuA.KaushanskayaM. (2023). The role of bilingualism in paired-associate and cross-situational word learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 27(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000524
54.
NusbaumH.MorinT. (1992). Paying attention to differences among talkers. In TohkuraY.Vatikiotis-BatesonE.SagisakaY. (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 113–134). IOS Press.
55.
OrenaA. J.TheodoreR. M.PolkaL. (2015). Language exposure facilitates talker learning prior to language comprehension, even in adults. Cognition, 143, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.002
56.
PaapK. R.GreenbergZ. I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002
57.
PaapK. R.JohnsonH. A.SawiO. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
58.
PerrachioneT. K.LeeJ.HaL. Y.WongP. C. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3593366
59.
PetersonG. E.BarneyH. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906875
RestleF. (1955). A theory of discrimination learning. Psychological Review, 62(1), 11.
62.
RStudio Team. (2019). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/
63.
SadakataM.McQueenJ. M. (2013). High stimulus variability in nonnative speech learning supports formation of abstract categories: Evidence from Japanese geminates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), 1324–1335. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812767
64.
SinkeviciuteR.BrownH.BrekelmansG.WonnacottE. (2019). The role of input variability and learner age in second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 795–820. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000263
65.
SommersM. S.BarcroftJ. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence form amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070129
66.
SommersM. S.BarcroftJ. (2011). Indexical information, encoding difficulty, and second language vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000469
67.
SznabelD.LandR.KoppB.KralA. (2023). The relation between implicit statistical learning and proactivity as revealed by EEG. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 15787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42116-y
68.
TuninettiA.MulakK. E.EscuderoP. (2020). Cross-situational word learning in two Foreign languages: Effects of native language and perceptual difficulty. Frontiers in Communication, 5, Article 602471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.602471
69.
WongP. C. M.NusbaumH. C.SmallS. L. (2004). Neural bases of talker normalization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1173–1184. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920522
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
