Limits...
Prediction during statistical learning, and implications for the implicit/explicit divide.

Dale R, Duran ND, Morehead JR - Adv Cogn Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: We offer a novel experimental context to explore prediction, and report results from a simple sequential learning task designed to promote predictive behaviors in participants as they responded to a short sequence of simple stimulus events.Analysis of computer-mouse trajectories revealed that (a) participants almost always anticipate events in some manner, (b) participants exhibit two stable patterns of behavior, either reacting to vs. predicting future events, (c) the extent to which participants predict relates to performance on a recall test, and (d) explicit reports of perceiving patterns in the brief sequence correlates with extent of prediction.We end with a discussion of implicit and explicit statistical learning and of the role prediction may play in both kinds of learning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Accounts of statistical learning, both implicit and explicit, often invoke predictive processes as central to learning, yet practically all experiments employ non-predictive measures during training. We argue that the common theoretical assumption of anticipation and prediction needs clearer, more direct evidence for it during learning. We offer a novel experimental context to explore prediction, and report results from a simple sequential learning task designed to promote predictive behaviors in participants as they responded to a short sequence of simple stimulus events. Predictive tendencies in participants were measured using their computer mouse, the trajectories of which served as a means of tapping into predictive behavior while participants were exposed to very short and simple sequences of events. A total of 143 participants were randomly assigned to stimulus sequences along a continuum of regularity. Analysis of computer-mouse trajectories revealed that (a) participants almost always anticipate events in some manner, (b) participants exhibit two stable patterns of behavior, either reacting to vs. predicting future events, (c) the extent to which participants predict relates to performance on a recall test, and (d) explicit reports of perceiving patterns in the brief sequence correlates with extent of prediction. We end with a discussion of implicit and explicit statistical learning and of the role prediction may play in both kinds of learning.

No MeSH data available.


The distribution of trials in correct predictions (black line) andany predictive movement at all (dotted line). As seen in Block 2,overall prediction represents a larger proportion of the trials(approximately 70%) than correct prediction by itself (50%). Inother blocks, prediction and correct prediction overlap closely.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376885&req=5

Figure 4: The distribution of trials in correct predictions (black line) andany predictive movement at all (dotted line). As seen in Block 2,overall prediction represents a larger proportion of the trials(approximately 70%) than correct prediction by itself (50%). Inother blocks, prediction and correct prediction overlap closely.

Mentions: We compared initial distance to next (correct prediction) and initialdistance from previous (overall predictive movements) across blocks. Ifprediction occurs before knowledge, then overall prediction should besignificantly higher at a crucial period as prediction emerges. Figure 4 shows the first four blocks ofthe three perfectly regular sequences, for which prediction was stable andfrequent in participants. At Block 2, trials tended to be more predictiveoverall rather than simply correctly predictive. We generated a score from 0to 6 for each block for each subject, computed by subtracting the number ofcorrect predictions (using a conservative 100-pixel threshold) from thenumber of overall predictions by initial distance from previous (using thesame 275-pixel threshold). In Blocks 1, 3, and 4 this score did not differsignificantly from 0, as expected from Figure4, ts < 1.9, ps = .10, .09,and .07, respectively. However, in Block 2, this score is substantiallypositive across these participants, t(39) = 5.1,p < .0001. This indicates that at about Block 2,there is more prediction in general than just correct prediction. In short,prediction generally appears to occur prior to total correct knowledge aboutthe sequences.


Prediction during statistical learning, and implications for the implicit/explicit divide.

Dale R, Duran ND, Morehead JR - Adv Cogn Psychol (2012)

The distribution of trials in correct predictions (black line) andany predictive movement at all (dotted line). As seen in Block 2,overall prediction represents a larger proportion of the trials(approximately 70%) than correct prediction by itself (50%). Inother blocks, prediction and correct prediction overlap closely.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376885&req=5

Figure 4: The distribution of trials in correct predictions (black line) andany predictive movement at all (dotted line). As seen in Block 2,overall prediction represents a larger proportion of the trials(approximately 70%) than correct prediction by itself (50%). Inother blocks, prediction and correct prediction overlap closely.
Mentions: We compared initial distance to next (correct prediction) and initialdistance from previous (overall predictive movements) across blocks. Ifprediction occurs before knowledge, then overall prediction should besignificantly higher at a crucial period as prediction emerges. Figure 4 shows the first four blocks ofthe three perfectly regular sequences, for which prediction was stable andfrequent in participants. At Block 2, trials tended to be more predictiveoverall rather than simply correctly predictive. We generated a score from 0to 6 for each block for each subject, computed by subtracting the number ofcorrect predictions (using a conservative 100-pixel threshold) from thenumber of overall predictions by initial distance from previous (using thesame 275-pixel threshold). In Blocks 1, 3, and 4 this score did not differsignificantly from 0, as expected from Figure4, ts < 1.9, ps = .10, .09,and .07, respectively. However, in Block 2, this score is substantiallypositive across these participants, t(39) = 5.1,p < .0001. This indicates that at about Block 2,there is more prediction in general than just correct prediction. In short,prediction generally appears to occur prior to total correct knowledge aboutthe sequences.

Bottom Line: We offer a novel experimental context to explore prediction, and report results from a simple sequential learning task designed to promote predictive behaviors in participants as they responded to a short sequence of simple stimulus events.Analysis of computer-mouse trajectories revealed that (a) participants almost always anticipate events in some manner, (b) participants exhibit two stable patterns of behavior, either reacting to vs. predicting future events, (c) the extent to which participants predict relates to performance on a recall test, and (d) explicit reports of perceiving patterns in the brief sequence correlates with extent of prediction.We end with a discussion of implicit and explicit statistical learning and of the role prediction may play in both kinds of learning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Accounts of statistical learning, both implicit and explicit, often invoke predictive processes as central to learning, yet practically all experiments employ non-predictive measures during training. We argue that the common theoretical assumption of anticipation and prediction needs clearer, more direct evidence for it during learning. We offer a novel experimental context to explore prediction, and report results from a simple sequential learning task designed to promote predictive behaviors in participants as they responded to a short sequence of simple stimulus events. Predictive tendencies in participants were measured using their computer mouse, the trajectories of which served as a means of tapping into predictive behavior while participants were exposed to very short and simple sequences of events. A total of 143 participants were randomly assigned to stimulus sequences along a continuum of regularity. Analysis of computer-mouse trajectories revealed that (a) participants almost always anticipate events in some manner, (b) participants exhibit two stable patterns of behavior, either reacting to vs. predicting future events, (c) the extent to which participants predict relates to performance on a recall test, and (d) explicit reports of perceiving patterns in the brief sequence correlates with extent of prediction. We end with a discussion of implicit and explicit statistical learning and of the role prediction may play in both kinds of learning.

No MeSH data available.