Limits...
Mixed-complexity artificial grammar learning in humans and macaque monkeys: evaluating learning strategies.

Wilson B, Smith K, Petkov CI - Eur. J. Neurosci. (2015)

Bottom Line: We found no significant sensitivity to the non-adjacent AG relationships in the macaques.The results suggest that humans and macaques are largely comparably sensitive to the adjacent AG relationships and their statistical properties.However, in the presence of multiple cues to grammaticality, the non-adjacent relationships are less salient to the macaques and many of the humans.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK; Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Human experiment results. (A) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘does not follow the pattern’ (violation) response to the consistent and violation testing sequences. Values > 50% (chance level) represent accurate identification of the violation sequences (red), and values below 50% are accurate identification of the consistent sequences (blue). (B) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response separated based on the number of rule violations in the consistent (blue) or violation (red) sequences. (C) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response plotted against the mean transitional probability (TP) of each consistent (blue) and violation (red) sequence. (D) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response to violation sequences that only contained local violations, but not long‐distance, non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation (red), relative to those that also violated the long‐distance ‘ACF’ association in addition to local violations (dark red). (E) Mean (± SEM) difference in proportion of trials on which individual participants (ranked by performance) gave the ‘violation’ response to sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation relative to those with no ‘ACF’ violation. Values higher than zero represent accurate identification of the sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation. A paired‐samples sign test was performed for each participant, to identify those who responded to the non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation significantly above chance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493314&req=5

ejn12834-fig-0004: Human experiment results. (A) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘does not follow the pattern’ (violation) response to the consistent and violation testing sequences. Values > 50% (chance level) represent accurate identification of the violation sequences (red), and values below 50% are accurate identification of the consistent sequences (blue). (B) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response separated based on the number of rule violations in the consistent (blue) or violation (red) sequences. (C) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response plotted against the mean transitional probability (TP) of each consistent (blue) and violation (red) sequence. (D) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response to violation sequences that only contained local violations, but not long‐distance, non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation (red), relative to those that also violated the long‐distance ‘ACF’ association in addition to local violations (dark red). (E) Mean (± SEM) difference in proportion of trials on which individual participants (ranked by performance) gave the ‘violation’ response to sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation relative to those with no ‘ACF’ violation. Values higher than zero represent accurate identification of the sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation. A paired‐samples sign test was performed for each participant, to identify those who responded to the non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation significantly above chance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Mentions: To allow a closer comparison to the non‐human primate results, data are plotted as the proportion of trials to which the participants indicated that the sequences ‘did not follow the pattern’ (‘violation’ response; Fig. 4). Therefore for consistent sequences (blue in Fig. 4), responses below the 50% chance level indicate good performance, and for violation sequences (red in Fig. 4) responses above the chance level indicate good performance. This facilitates more direct comparisons between responses to consistent and violation test conditions across the species.


Mixed-complexity artificial grammar learning in humans and macaque monkeys: evaluating learning strategies.

Wilson B, Smith K, Petkov CI - Eur. J. Neurosci. (2015)

Human experiment results. (A) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘does not follow the pattern’ (violation) response to the consistent and violation testing sequences. Values > 50% (chance level) represent accurate identification of the violation sequences (red), and values below 50% are accurate identification of the consistent sequences (blue). (B) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response separated based on the number of rule violations in the consistent (blue) or violation (red) sequences. (C) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response plotted against the mean transitional probability (TP) of each consistent (blue) and violation (red) sequence. (D) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response to violation sequences that only contained local violations, but not long‐distance, non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation (red), relative to those that also violated the long‐distance ‘ACF’ association in addition to local violations (dark red). (E) Mean (± SEM) difference in proportion of trials on which individual participants (ranked by performance) gave the ‘violation’ response to sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation relative to those with no ‘ACF’ violation. Values higher than zero represent accurate identification of the sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation. A paired‐samples sign test was performed for each participant, to identify those who responded to the non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation significantly above chance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493314&req=5

ejn12834-fig-0004: Human experiment results. (A) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘does not follow the pattern’ (violation) response to the consistent and violation testing sequences. Values > 50% (chance level) represent accurate identification of the violation sequences (red), and values below 50% are accurate identification of the consistent sequences (blue). (B) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response separated based on the number of rule violations in the consistent (blue) or violation (red) sequences. (C) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response plotted against the mean transitional probability (TP) of each consistent (blue) and violation (red) sequence. (D) Mean (± SEM) proportion of trials on which participants gave the ‘violation’ response to violation sequences that only contained local violations, but not long‐distance, non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation (red), relative to those that also violated the long‐distance ‘ACF’ association in addition to local violations (dark red). (E) Mean (± SEM) difference in proportion of trials on which individual participants (ranked by performance) gave the ‘violation’ response to sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation relative to those with no ‘ACF’ violation. Values higher than zero represent accurate identification of the sequences containing the ‘ACF’ violation. A paired‐samples sign test was performed for each participant, to identify those who responded to the non‐adjacent ‘ACF’ violation significantly above chance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Mentions: To allow a closer comparison to the non‐human primate results, data are plotted as the proportion of trials to which the participants indicated that the sequences ‘did not follow the pattern’ (‘violation’ response; Fig. 4). Therefore for consistent sequences (blue in Fig. 4), responses below the 50% chance level indicate good performance, and for violation sequences (red in Fig. 4) responses above the chance level indicate good performance. This facilitates more direct comparisons between responses to consistent and violation test conditions across the species.

Bottom Line: We found no significant sensitivity to the non-adjacent AG relationships in the macaques.The results suggest that humans and macaques are largely comparably sensitive to the adjacent AG relationships and their statistical properties.However, in the presence of multiple cues to grammaticality, the non-adjacent relationships are less salient to the macaques and many of the humans.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK; Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus