Loading…

What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?

•Artificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.•Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.•Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.•Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and sh...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2017-10, Vol.81 (Pt B), p.238-246
Main Authors: Beckers, Gabriël J.L., Berwick, Robert C., Okanoya, Kazuo, Bolhuis, Johan J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073
container_end_page 246
container_issue Pt B
container_start_page 238
container_title Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews
container_volume 81
creator Beckers, Gabriël J.L.
Berwick, Robert C.
Okanoya, Kazuo
Bolhuis, Johan J.
description •Artificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.•Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.•Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.•Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and should be controlled for. Artificial grammar learning is a popular paradigm to study syntactic ability in nonhuman animals. Subjects are first trained to recognize strings of tokens that are sequenced according to grammatical rules. Next, to test if recognition depends on grammaticality, subjects are presented with grammar-consistent and grammar-violating test strings, which they should discriminate between. However, simpler cues may underlie discrimination if they are available. Here, we review stimulus design in a sample of studies that use particular sounds as tokens, and that claim or suggest their results demonstrate a form of sequence rule learning. To assess the extent of acoustic similarity between training and test strings, we use four simple measures corresponding to cues that are likely salient. All stimulus sets contain biases in similarity measures such that grammatical test stimuli resemble training stimuli acoustically more than do non-grammatical test stimuli. These biases may contribute to response behaviour, reducing the strength of grammatical explanations. We conclude that acoustic confounds are a blind spot in artificial grammar learning studies in nonhuman animals.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.021
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1853350900</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0149763416304572</els_id><sourcerecordid>1853350900</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwF6BHLi1OmjbNCU0TX9IkLiCOUZq4kKkfkLST-PdkGuzKyZb1vLb8EHJFIaNAy5tN1uNUu8HjNmNxkFGWAaNHZE4rkaeiYNUxmQPlMhVlzmfkLIQNADDIi1MyYxVQUXGYE_72ocfEDonuXafbkLSofZ-4PtF-dI0zTrfJu9ddp30Sxsk6DLfn5KSJLF781gV5vb97WT2m6-eHp9VynRpelWNqpbYGTWXrso5dgw3o0kCubWFQ6rphwsqaUss5rQrZMK6pFI0UXGJRgsgX5Hq_99MPXxOGUXUuGGxb3eMwBRVTeV6ABIio2KPGDyF4bNSnjw_5b0VB7ZSpjTooUztlijIVlcXk5e-Rqe7QHnJ_jiKw3AMYX9069CoYh71B6zyaUdnB_XvkB_MUgbI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1853350900</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Beckers, Gabriël J.L. ; Berwick, Robert C. ; Okanoya, Kazuo ; Bolhuis, Johan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Beckers, Gabriël J.L. ; Berwick, Robert C. ; Okanoya, Kazuo ; Bolhuis, Johan J.</creatorcontrib><description>•Artificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.•Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.•Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.•Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and should be controlled for. Artificial grammar learning is a popular paradigm to study syntactic ability in nonhuman animals. Subjects are first trained to recognize strings of tokens that are sequenced according to grammatical rules. Next, to test if recognition depends on grammaticality, subjects are presented with grammar-consistent and grammar-violating test strings, which they should discriminate between. However, simpler cues may underlie discrimination if they are available. Here, we review stimulus design in a sample of studies that use particular sounds as tokens, and that claim or suggest their results demonstrate a form of sequence rule learning. To assess the extent of acoustic similarity between training and test strings, we use four simple measures corresponding to cues that are likely salient. All stimulus sets contain biases in similarity measures such that grammatical test stimuli resemble training stimuli acoustically more than do non-grammatical test stimuli. These biases may contribute to response behaviour, reducing the strength of grammatical explanations. We conclude that acoustic confounds are a blind spot in artificial grammar learning studies in nonhuman animals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0149-7634</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28017840</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal cognition ; Artificial grammar learning ; Auditory memory ; Biolinguistics ; Bird ; Primate ; Rule learning ; Syntax</subject><ispartof>Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2017-10, Vol.81 (Pt B), p.238-246</ispartof><rights>2016 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28017840$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Beckers, Gabriël J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berwick, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okanoya, Kazuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolhuis, Johan J.</creatorcontrib><title>What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?</title><title>Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews</title><addtitle>Neurosci Biobehav Rev</addtitle><description>•Artificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.•Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.•Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.•Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and should be controlled for. Artificial grammar learning is a popular paradigm to study syntactic ability in nonhuman animals. Subjects are first trained to recognize strings of tokens that are sequenced according to grammatical rules. Next, to test if recognition depends on grammaticality, subjects are presented with grammar-consistent and grammar-violating test strings, which they should discriminate between. However, simpler cues may underlie discrimination if they are available. Here, we review stimulus design in a sample of studies that use particular sounds as tokens, and that claim or suggest their results demonstrate a form of sequence rule learning. To assess the extent of acoustic similarity between training and test strings, we use four simple measures corresponding to cues that are likely salient. All stimulus sets contain biases in similarity measures such that grammatical test stimuli resemble training stimuli acoustically more than do non-grammatical test stimuli. These biases may contribute to response behaviour, reducing the strength of grammatical explanations. We conclude that acoustic confounds are a blind spot in artificial grammar learning studies in nonhuman animals.</description><subject>Animal cognition</subject><subject>Artificial grammar learning</subject><subject>Auditory memory</subject><subject>Biolinguistics</subject><subject>Bird</subject><subject>Primate</subject><subject>Rule learning</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><issn>0149-7634</issn><issn>1873-7528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwF6BHLi1OmjbNCU0TX9IkLiCOUZq4kKkfkLST-PdkGuzKyZb1vLb8EHJFIaNAy5tN1uNUu8HjNmNxkFGWAaNHZE4rkaeiYNUxmQPlMhVlzmfkLIQNADDIi1MyYxVQUXGYE_72ocfEDonuXafbkLSofZ-4PtF-dI0zTrfJu9ddp30Sxsk6DLfn5KSJLF781gV5vb97WT2m6-eHp9VynRpelWNqpbYGTWXrso5dgw3o0kCubWFQ6rphwsqaUss5rQrZMK6pFI0UXGJRgsgX5Hq_99MPXxOGUXUuGGxb3eMwBRVTeV6ABIio2KPGDyF4bNSnjw_5b0VB7ZSpjTooUztlijIVlcXk5e-Rqe7QHnJ_jiKw3AMYX9069CoYh71B6zyaUdnB_XvkB_MUgbI</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Beckers, Gabriël J.L.</creator><creator>Berwick, Robert C.</creator><creator>Okanoya, Kazuo</creator><creator>Bolhuis, Johan J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?</title><author>Beckers, Gabriël J.L. ; Berwick, Robert C. ; Okanoya, Kazuo ; Bolhuis, Johan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Animal cognition</topic><topic>Artificial grammar learning</topic><topic>Auditory memory</topic><topic>Biolinguistics</topic><topic>Bird</topic><topic>Primate</topic><topic>Rule learning</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Beckers, Gabriël J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berwick, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okanoya, Kazuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolhuis, Johan J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Beckers, Gabriël J.L.</au><au>Berwick, Robert C.</au><au>Okanoya, Kazuo</au><au>Bolhuis, Johan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?</atitle><jtitle>Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Neurosci Biobehav Rev</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>Pt B</issue><spage>238</spage><epage>246</epage><pages>238-246</pages><issn>0149-7634</issn><eissn>1873-7528</eissn><abstract>•Artificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.•Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.•Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.•Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and should be controlled for. Artificial grammar learning is a popular paradigm to study syntactic ability in nonhuman animals. Subjects are first trained to recognize strings of tokens that are sequenced according to grammatical rules. Next, to test if recognition depends on grammaticality, subjects are presented with grammar-consistent and grammar-violating test strings, which they should discriminate between. However, simpler cues may underlie discrimination if they are available. Here, we review stimulus design in a sample of studies that use particular sounds as tokens, and that claim or suggest their results demonstrate a form of sequence rule learning. To assess the extent of acoustic similarity between training and test strings, we use four simple measures corresponding to cues that are likely salient. All stimulus sets contain biases in similarity measures such that grammatical test stimuli resemble training stimuli acoustically more than do non-grammatical test stimuli. These biases may contribute to response behaviour, reducing the strength of grammatical explanations. We conclude that acoustic confounds are a blind spot in artificial grammar learning studies in nonhuman animals.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28017840</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.021</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0149-7634
ispartof Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2017-10, Vol.81 (Pt B), p.238-246
issn 0149-7634
1873-7528
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1853350900
source Elsevier
subjects Animal cognition
Artificial grammar learning
Auditory memory
Biolinguistics
Bird
Primate
Rule learning
Syntax
title What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T19%3A16%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20do%20animals%20learn%20in%20artificial%20grammar%20studies?&rft.jtitle=Neuroscience%20and%20biobehavioral%20reviews&rft.au=Beckers,%20Gabri%C3%ABl%20J.L.&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=Pt%20B&rft.spage=238&rft.epage=246&rft.pages=238-246&rft.issn=0149-7634&rft.eissn=1873-7528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1853350900%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-d9adcec8db6badcfef0a6c03ad5ce9abf27d9b11d441859f24a197f9749e56073%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1853350900&rft_id=info:pmid/28017840&rfr_iscdi=true