Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2013, Vol. 45 Issue (12) : 1313-1323     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01313
|
Comparison of Implicit Learning Effect between Multisensory and Unisensory
SHI Wendian;LI Xiujun;WANG Wei;YAN Wenhua
(1 Education School of Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China) (2 School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China)
Download: PDF(363 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

There is a controversy between two models (modality-dependent versus abstract representations) concerning knowledge gaining in the cognitive psychology in recent years. Some studies showed that participants gained their knowledge base on the legal regularities (Barbey & Wilson, 2003), and gained their implicit learning not only across letter sets, but also across sense modalities (Tunney & Altmann, 2001; Kirkham, Slemmer, & Johnson, 2002). Transfer effects are explained by proposing that the learning is based on abstract knowledge, that is, knowledge is not directly tied to the surface features or sensory instantiation of the stimuli (Pena, Bonatti, Nespor, & Mehler, 2002). On the contrary, other studies showed different results that supposedly grounded in modality-specific sensorimotor mechanisms demonstrating implicit learning is not only sensitive to stimulus-specific features (e.g., Chang, Knowlton, 2004) but also to modality-specific features (e.g., Barsalou, Simmons, Barbey, & Wilson, 2003; Conway & Christiansen, 2005, 2006, 2009; Emberson, 2011). Therefore it needs more exploration about the root of implicit learning which employs a central mechanism or multiple modality-specific mechanisms. Previous researches mainly focus on comparison of single modality, but the sensory environment is seldom limited to a single modality or input source (Stein & Stanford, 2008), thus it is possible that implicit learning may use simultaneously both auditory and visual modalities. The objective of current research is to explore to what extent multimodal input sources are processed independently. There were 169 college students took part into three experiments. Artificial Grammar Learning task was used. In Experiment 1, visual and auditory implicit learning effects were measured respectively, and the result of Experiment 1 provided a baseline learning rate for comparison in subsequent experiments. In Experiment 2, audiovisual sequences were presented simultaneously with the same grammar rules. In Experiment 3, audiovisual sequences were presented simultaneously with the different grammar rules. Results showed that: (1) there was significant implicit learning effect both for visual and auditory. (2) there was marginally significant implicit learning effect on visual and auditory when audiovisual sequences were presented simultaneously with the same grammar rules; and there were no significant differences between unisensory and multisensory. (3) There were significant implicit learning effects both of visual and auditory when audiovisual sequences were presented simultaneously with the different grammar rules, and there were no significant differences between unisensory and multisensory. One conclusion of current research is that multisensory has almost the same implicit learning effect as unisensory. Participants are able to track simultaneously two sets of sequential regularities regardless of the similarity of grammar rules, which indicates learners possess multisensory implicit learning ability. Multistream statistical learning is processed independently for each modality which perhaps indicates the involvement of multiple learning subsystems. The research result supports implicit learning’s modality-specific theory and challenges abstract representation’s theory.

Keywords implicit learning      modality      modality-specific      abstract presentation     
Corresponding Authors: YAN Wenhua   
Issue Date: 25 December 2013
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
SHI Wendian;LI Xiujun;WANG Wei;YAN Wenhua. Comparison of Implicit Learning Effect between Multisensory and Unisensory[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2013, 45(12): 1313-1323.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01313     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2013/V45/I12/1313
[1] Xiaoyu TANG,Jiaying SUN,Xing PENG. The effect of bimodal divided attention on inhibition of return with audiovisual targets[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 257-268.
[2] YIN Huazhan; LI Dan; CHEN Yingyu; Huang Xiting. The characteristic of 1~6 s duration cognition segmentation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(9): 1119-1129.
[3] LIU Zhiya; ZHENG Chen. Information Amount and Obviousness Influence Hypothesis Generation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(12): 1445-1453.
[4] ZHANG Jianxin; WU Yan; CHEN Xinyun; LIU Dianzhi. Probabilistic Implict Sequence Learning Differences between Individuals with High vs. Low Openness /Feeling[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(12): 1793-1804 .
[5] ZHANG Runlai; LIU Dianzhi. The Development of Graded Consciousness in Artificial Grammar Learning[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1649-1660.
[6] ZHANG Ji-Jia,SONG Yi-Qi. Modality Specificity of Horizontal Metaphoric Representation of Time: A Comparison Study Between the Blind and Sighted People[J]. , 2012, 44(1): 40-50.
[7] SUN Yuan-Lu,HU Zhong-Hua,ZHANG Rui-Ling,XUN Mang-Mang,LIU Qiang,ZHANG Qing-Lin. An Investigation on the Effect Factors in the Paradigm of Multisensory Integration[J]. , 2011, 43(11): 1239-1246.
[8] GUO Xiu-Yan,JIANG Shan,LING Xiao-Li,ZHU Lei,TANG Jing-Hua. Specific Contribution of Intuition to Implicit Learning Superiority[J]. , 2011, 43(09): 977-982.
[9] ZHANG Yuan,LIU Deng-Pan,YOU Xu-Qun. Visual Implicit Learning of Spatial Information in Judgment of Categorical Spatial Relation[J]. , 2011, 43(08): 889-897.
[10] LI Xiao-Jian,WANG Wen-Na,LI Xiao-Qian. Auditory Word Frequency Effect within Homophone Families and the Activation of Homophone Representations[J]. , 2011, 43(07): 749-762.
[11] XU Gui-Ping,WEN Hong-Bo,WEI Xiao-Ma,MO Lei. The Influence of Positions of Cues on Probabilistic Category Learning[J]. , 2011, 43(03): 264-273.
[12] Mao Weibin,Yang Zhiliang,Wang Linsong,Yuan Jianwei. Modality Effect of Cross-Language False Memory among Less Proficient Chinese-English Bilinguals[J]. , 2008, 40(03): 274-282.
[13] Fu Qiufang, Liu Yongfang, Fu Xiaolan. THE EFFECTS OF TYPE AND FEATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ON IMPLICIT SEQUENCE LEARNING[J]. , 2004, 36(05): 525-533.
[14] He Gebing,Zeng Jianhua. IMPLICIT LEARNING OF DISTRIBUTED DECISION GROUP IN DYNAMIC SYSTEM CONTROL TASK[J]. , 2003, 35(06): 777-785.
[15] Zhang Wei 1,2 , Mo Lei 1 , Xu Shangxia 1 , Wang Suiping 1 ( 1 Department of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631) ( 2 Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875). THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COGNITIVE LOADS ON IMPLICIT LEARNING[J]. , 2002, 34(05): 38-44.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech