Visual Cognition

ISSN: 1350-6285 (Print) 1464-0716 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pvis20

Dissociable behavioural outcomes of visual

statistical learning

Brett C. Bays, Nicholas B. Turk-Browne & Aaron R. Seitz

To cite this article: Brett C. Bays, Nicholas B. Turk-Browne & Aaron R. Seitz (2016):
Dissociable behavioural outcomes of visual statistical learning, Visual Cognition, DOI:
10.1080/13506285.2016.1139647

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1139647

View supplementary material

Published online: 22 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pvis20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 03 April 2016, At: 02:08

 VISUAL COGNITION, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1139647

Dissociable behavioural outcomes of visual statistical

learning
Brett C. Baysa, Nicholas B. Turk-Browneb and Aaron R. Seitza
a
Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA; bDepartment of
Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

ABSTRACT
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

Statistical learning refers to the extraction of probabilistic relationships between

stimuli and is increasingly used as a method to understand learning processes.
However, numerous cognitive processes are sensitive to the statistical
relationships between stimuli and any one measure of learning may conflate
these processes; to date little research has focused on differentiating these
processes. To understand how multiple processes underlie statistical learning,
here we compared, within the same study, operational measures of learning
from different tasks that may be differentially sensitive to these processes. In
Experiment 1, participants were visually exposed to temporal regularities
embedded in a stream of shapes. Their task was to periodically detect
whether a shape, whose contrast was staircased to a threshold level, was
present or absent. Afterwards, they completed a search task, where
statistically predictable shapes were found more quickly. We used the search
task to label shape pairs as “learned” or “non-learned”, and then used these
labels to analyse the detection task. We found a dissociation between
learning on the search task and the detection task where only non-learned
pairs showed learning effects in the detection task. This finding was replicated
in further experiments with recognition memory (Experiment 2) and
associative learning tasks (Experiment 3). Taken together, these findings are
consistent with the view that statistical learning may comprise a family of
processes that can produce dissociable effects on different aspects of behaviour.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 29 March 2015; Accepted 2 January 2016

KEYWORDS Statistical learning; associative learning; perceptual thresholds; recognition memory;

multiple memory systems

An important cognitive function is to learn associative relationships between

stimuli in our environment. However, our perceptual systems are oversatu-
rated in terms of the number of stimuli we can attend to and remember.
Thus, learning to associate stimuli into coherent perceptual objects may
seem like a hopeless endeavour. One way that people learn associative

CONTACT Brett Bays bbays001@ucr.edu

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1139647.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 2 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

relationships between environmental patterns is through statistical learning, a

ubiquitous process that involves learning patterns among stimuli organized
according to probabilistic relationships. It can occur extremely quickly in
experimental settings, after only a few minutes (Aslin, Saffran, & Newport,
1998; Kim, Seitz, Feenstra, & Shams, 2009; Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996),
and without explicit awareness (Fiser & Aslin, 2002; Kim et al., 2009). Statistical
learning has been found to underlie basic aspects of language development
(Saffran et al., 1996; Saffran & Thiessen, 2003; Yang, 2004), as well as other
aspects of cognitive development and psychology. For instance, it occurs in
both children and adults (Saffran, Johnson, Aslin, & Newport, 1999), operates
in multiple modalities (Conway & Christiansen, 2005), helps bind both features
and objects (Turk-Browne, Isola, Scholl, & Treat, 2008), transfers across spatial
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

and temporal dimensions (Turk-Browne & Scholl, 2009), defines the scale of
visual objects (Fiser & Aslin, 2001, 2005), and can even alter our perception
of stimuli (Chalk, Seitz, & Seriès, 2010).
Among the wide array of statistical learning studies, there is an equally wide
array of exposure (acquisition of learning) and testing (assessment of learning)
procedures. Exposure can occur passively with auditory stimuli (Saffran et al.,
1996), passively with visual stimuli (Fiser & Aslin, 2001), actively with a cover
task related to the stimuli (Toro, Sinnett, & Soto-Faraco, 2005), and actively
with a cover task unrelated to the stimuli (Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Bar-
rueco, 1997). Testing procedures used to assay learning include familiarity tests
(e.g., Fiser & Aslin, 2001, 2002; Saffran et al., 1999; Turk-Browne et al., 2008), reac-
tion time tests (Hunt & Aslin, 2001; Kim et al., 2009; Turk-Browne, Jungé, &
Scholl, 2005), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (e.g., Karuza et al.,
2013; Schapiro, Gregory, Landau, McCloskey, & Turk-Browne, 2014; Schapiro,
Kustner, & Turk-Browne, 2012; Turk-Browne, Scholl, Chun, & Johnson, 2009).
Researchers often alternate between measures of statistical learning
without differentiating between the general interpretations of the outcomes
(Turk-Browne et al., 2008, 2005). For example, results obtained using a reaction
time task have been discussed in the same terms as those obtained using a
two-interval forced choice task with relation to what they reveal about statisti-
cal learning (Turk-Browne et al., 2008, 2005). Additionally, results from para-
digms as varied as the learning of visuo-spatial patterns, visuo-temporal
patterns, and audio-temporal patterns, are all labelled with the general
name of “statistical learning” with little discussion of distinctions in the learn-
ing rate, mechanisms, and constraints (Fiser & Aslin, 2005; Saffran et al., 1999;
Zhao, Al-Aidroos, & Turk-Browne, 2013). These results are sometimes explicitly
theorized to represent the same underlying learning mechanism (Kirkham,
Slemmer, & Johnson, 2002; Perruchet & Pacton, 2006) or occasionally theo-
rized to stem from different cognitive mechanisms (Conway & Christiansen,
2005), but more often the literature has not discussed in detail what exactly
statistical learning is.
 VISUAL COGNITION 3

Further, despite the myriad procedures that have been used to investigate
statistical learning, researchers rarely address the possibility that different
systems may be engaged and responsible for the learning observed across
studies. Here we address the possibility that statistical learning comprises mul-
tiple cognitive processes. A “process” refers to a series of steps to achieve a
particular end (http://www.merriam-webster.com), and by “multiple pro-
cesses” we mean that different systems act at once upon the stimuli—inde-
pendently, cooperatively, or competitively—and that each can achieve its
own end and learn independently.
Growing evidence suggests that numerous cognitive processes are sensi-
tive to statistical relationships and that learning in even simple tasks can
involve simultaneous dissociable processes (Frost, Siegelman, Narkiss, &
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

Afek, 2013; Le Dantec, Melton, & Seitz, 2012; Zhao et al., 2013; Zhao, Ngo,
McKendrick, & Turk-Browne, 2011). The consolidation of statistical learning
has both sleep-dependent and time-dependent components (Durrant,
Taylor, Cairney, & Lewis, 2011) and may lead to perceptual learning in addition
to associative learning (Barakat, Seitz, & Shams, 2013). In artificial grammar
learning (AGL) paradigms, which are closely related to statistical learning para-
digms, fMRI studies have revealed different neural networks subserving the
recognition of items and the learning of the grammar (Fletcher, Büchel,
Josephs, Friston, & Dolan, 1999; Lieberman, Chang, Chiao, Bookheimer, &
Knowlton, 2004; Seger, Prabhakaran, Poldrack, & Gabrieli, 2000) and dissoci-
able overlapping networks of implicit and explicit learning during AGL have
been demonstrated (Yang & Li, 2012). Similarly, in statistical learning para-
digms, different time-courses of medial temporal lobe and striatal activation
have been observed, which might correspond to competing memory
systems at work (Durrant, Cairney, & Lewis, 2013; Turk-Browne et al., 2009;
Turk-Browne, Scholl, Johnson, & Chun, 2010).
In the present study, we investigate how the utilization of multiple tasks
that assay statistical learning may reveal different underlying cognitive pro-
cesses. This involves using a novel “item analysis” approach in which we quan-
tify statistical learning with two different tests per experiment and then relate
the amount of learning in each test on an item-by-item basis. This approach
enables a more detailed characterization of statistical learning than is typically
possible in studies using a single outcome measurement. Moreover, by using
multiple tests of statistical learning, we can also examine whether learning
manifests itself in a stable way across different behaviours for a given item.
Although measuring different behavioural tasks does not provide conclusive
evidence for or against multiple processes per se, this approach might never-
theless produce evidence useful for evaluating our hypothesis.
A single-process model of statistical learning predicts that multiple tests
should reveal the same qualitative pattern of results. If one measure is
more sensitive to learning than another, a single-process model would
 4 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

predict significant results from the more sensitive measure(s) and diminished
or null results from the less sensitive measure(s). However, across three exper-
iments, we found reversals between different behavioural outcomes of stat-
istical learning; that is, qualitative patterns of learning opposite to each
other. These findings undermine an implicit assumption in the field that a
common process underlies all manifestations of statistical learning.

Experiment 1
Our first experiment was an investigation of whether different tasks can reveal
different statistical learning outcomes from the same exposure. We conducted
an item-level analysis where, for each statistical regularity (e.g., a single pair of
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

items for a participant), we compared learning for that regularity across two
outcome measures. Specifically, we used a search post-test to categorize regu-
larities as “learned” or “non-learned”, and then examined performance for
these categorized regularities during a detection task conducted concurrent
with exposure.
In the detection task, a continuous stream of shapes was presented and
participants responded to a periodic tone as to whether a shape was
present or absent. This task occurred while participants learned the statistical
regularities and then continued for a period of time after learning could
reasonably be assumed to have occurred. In the search task, which occurred
after the detection task, participants were presented with a target shape at
the beginning of each trial and responded as soon as that shape appeared
in a rapid-serial visual presentation (RSVP) of distractors and a target.
These tasks are described more fully below, but insofar as different measures
of statistical learning reveal the same underlying process, then learned regu-
larities from the search task should exhibit the same signatures of learning in
the detection task. Alternatively, there may be no relationship or a negative
relationship between learning effects during the detection task and the
search task, which would be consistent with the existence of multiple processes
in statistical learning that manifest different behavioural outcomes.

Methods
Participants
Thirty-seven undergraduates at the University of California, Riverside, aged
18–24 (24 females), were included in this study. The number of participants
was determined based on how many students could be recruited for this
study within one 10-week quarter in the UC Riverside undergraduate
subject pool. This method introduces no statistical bias, as at no point were
data analysed in order to determine when to cease data collection. Inclusion
required completion of all experimental procedures without technical errors
 VISUAL COGNITION 5

and with responses to at least 70% of targets in both tasks (a criterion derived
from pilot data). Inability to complete both tasks satisfactorily resulted in the
exclusion of seven participants beyond the 37 included in the study. The data
of these participants were not analysed beyond the point of determining their
response rates and, importantly, these subject exclusion criteria are not
related to the differential performance between items that form the critical
analyses in this study. Participants received credit toward partial fulfilment
of course requirements for an introductory psychology course, gave written
informed consent as approved by the Human Research Review Board, and
had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. These criteria also apply to the sub-
sequent experiments reported below.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

Stimuli
The stimuli consisted of 15 shapes that were novel to the participants. These
shapes were adapted from or made to resemble shapes used in previous stat-
istical learning studies (Fiser & Aslin, 2001; Turk-Browne et al., 2005), subtend-
ing approximately 2.5° visually, and were randomly grouped into five triplets
on a participant-by-participant basis (see Figure 1(A)).

Apparatus
All stimuli were displayed on a 40.96 cm wide ViewSonic PF817 CRT monitor
connected to an Apple Mac Pro computer running OSX 10.6.8. Mediating the
connection from monitor to computer was a Bits + + digital video processor
(Cambridge Research Systems) that enables a 14-bit DAC, allowing for a 64-
fold increase in the display’s possible contrast values. Sennheiser HD 650

Figure 1. (A) 15 shapes used in Experiment 1, shown here grouped into five example
triplets. (B) Example of block progression and of stimuli at different contrasts. (C)
Example of progression within a single block. Stimuli appear onscreen sequentially
and musical notes indicate the occurrence of the periodic tone, which instructs partici-
pants to respond whether a shape was or was not onscreen.
 6 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

headphones, plugged into an AudioFire 2 (Echo Digital Audio) audio interface,

were used to present the auditory stimuli. Participants’ heads were restrained
with a chin rest and forehead bar 69.22 cm from the screen. Stimuli were con-
trolled by custom code written in Matlab, using the Psychophysics Toolbox
(http://psychtoolbox.org).

Detection task
During exposure, participants performed a detection task on a stream of
shapes appearing one at a time. Unbeknownst to them, the 15 shapes were
grouped into five triplets, e.g., if shapes A, B, and C were grouped together,
they always occurred in the order of A-B-C. Triplets for each participant
were mixed pseudorandomly within the presentation blocks, preserving
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

relations within triplets and equating overall exposure of triplets. In each of

the 20 exposure blocks, the five triplets were presented 18 times. The
shapes were presented one at a time in the centre of the screen, on a grey
background, with duration of 300 ms and ISI of 100 ms. Shapes were filled
with spatial white noise with pixel values above or below the grey background
and thus were always presented at the same mean luminance as the back-
ground (54 cd/m2). The luminance range was scaled according to a staircase
(see Figure 1(B) and Figure 2(B)). The duration of each block was 1.8 minutes
and, with breaks between blocks, the exposure phase typically lasted 40–45
minutes.
Within every block, each shape was paired twice with a tone that signalled
the participants to press “1” on the keyboard if a shape was visible on the
screen or “2” if there was no visible shape (Figure 1(C)). All shapes were
used once as a “present” target (i.e., visible and requiring a “1” response
from the participant) and once as an “absent” target (i.e., invisible and requir-
ing a “2” response). That is, when a shape was an “absent” target, we

Figure 2. (A) Mean accuracy as a function of block number. (B) Contrast levels at each
block, averaged over the 37 participants of Experiment 1. The ordinate displays the pro-
portion contrast, above or below the background. The first block was a practice block and
was not analysed. Error bars in both figures represent between-subjects standard error of
the mean (SEM).
 VISUAL COGNITION 7

presented a grey patch the same colour and contrast as the background (and
thus invisible) during the shape’s normal presentation period. When the tone
sounded the participant had to report whether there was a shape present or
whether there was no shape present. To temporally distribute responses, 1–3
filler triplets were placed between triplets containing a target.
To ensure that the detection task was engaging and challenging, the con-
trast of the shapes was adjusted using a block-wise staircase (Le Dantec et al.,
2012). If mean accuracy in the prior block was greater than .80, contrast was
adjusted according to the formula C ′ = (C/(P − .75) + 1), where C ′ is the new
contrast level for the upcoming block, C is the current contrast level, and P is
the mean performance for the completed block. If mean accuracy for the
block was .70 or less, then contrast was adjusted according to the formula
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

C ′ =C∗(1 − (P − .75)) with the constraint that the minimum value of P was
set to .50 (i.e., chance level). This staircase brought participants’ performance
to an average of 75% accuracy (see Figure 2(A)) and converged after approxi-
mately 10 blocks.
To measure statistical learning, we examined data after the staircase on
contrast converged. Based upon pilot experiments, and verified in the
present experiment, this occurred after block 10. Thus, all analyses use only
data from the second half of the detection task, blocks 11–20, where the
change in contrast between blocks is minimal (see Figure 2(B)). The use of
these later blocks ensured that there was minimal variance in stimulus con-
trast and subject performance and that there was sufficient time for the stat-
istical regularities to be learned. As such, our analysis of blocks 11–20 is akin to
post-tests used in other studies of statistical learning. For staircasing purposes,
accuracy was calculated over both present and absent targets but, because
we were interested only in how statistical learning occurs for visible shapes
and the effect of the absence of a shape is unknown, analyses were performed
only on present targets. Since present trials had higher accuracy than absent
trials overall, accuracy in subsequent analyses was slightly greater than the
75% level.
In both the detection task and in the search task (below), RTs more than
two standard deviations from the mean of each subject were excluded
from analyses.

Search task
Immediately following exposure, a “search task”, adapted from previous
studies (Kim et al., 2009; Turk-Browne et al., 2005), was performed. At the
beginning of each trial of the search task, a target shape (one of the 15
seen in the exposure phase) was displayed at the top of the screen and the
participant pressed any key to begin the trial. After the target shape disap-
peared, a pseudorandomly ordered stream of the five triplets was shown at
the same sequential presentation rate as in exposure, with the constraint
 8 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

that the triplet containing the target could not be the first or last triplet shown
in that trial. The participant’s task was to press the space bar as soon as the
target shape appeared. Each of the 15 shapes served as a target once per
block, and all shapes were displayed at a suprathreshold contrast level. The
search task consisted of six blocks with 15 trials each, which lasted 12
minutes total.

Analysis of shape groupings

The goal of the study was to determine statistical learning on an item level—
that is, at the level of individual shape groupings—and determine whether
different shape groupings were learned in different ways (see “Analysis of
learned and non-learned pairs”, below). To determine the proper items to
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

use in the ultimate analyses, we first examined whether participants learned

the full configuration of the triplets or whether participants learned two
pairs—the first/second shape pair (pair 1) and the second/third shape pair
(pair 2; Fiser & Aslin, 2002, 2005; Hunt & Aslin, 2001). We based this analysis
on the search task, which is a more standard measure of visual statistical learn-
ing (Baker, Olson, & Behrmann, 2004; Hunt & Aslin, 2001; Olson & Chun, 2001;
Turk-Browne et al., 2005) than the detection task, which we introduce for the
first time in this paper. In this analysis, a negative correlation of r = −0.5 is
expected by chance, simply because the same second-position RT is the nega-
tive part of the subtraction for pair 1 and the positive part of the subtraction
for pair 2. Response latency in the search task measures the degree to which a
target can be predicted based on associations with the preceding item(s) and
previous studies using this task found monotonic decreases in RT as item pos-
ition increases (e.g., Campbell, Healey, Lee, Zimerman, & Hasher, 2012; Kim
et al., 2009; Turk-Browne et al., 2005, 2010). Insofar as a triplet has been
well learned, there are strong associations between all items and the associ-
ative strength from the first to second item and the second to third item
should be correlated. Thus, if the full triplet structure were learned, the RT
differences between items 1 and 2 would correlate with RT differences
between items 2 and 3 significantly more positively than r = −0.5. However,
we found an even more negative correlation between the effects for the
two pairs (r = −0.77, p < .00001), which was more negative than all but
8.37% of iterations in non-parametric randomization test (i.e., randomly
assigning the observed distribution of RTs to different triplet positions
10,000 times and computing the correlation in each iteration). We also ran
additional correlational analyses and simulations on the difference between
the first two items of the triplet and the difference between the first and
last items of the triplet. Here we found a correlation of r = 0.47, which is
almost identical to the value of r = 0.50 that is expected by chance.
These analyses suggest a failure to learn at the triplet level and the trend in
the opposite direction suggests that learning of the two pairs—which
 VISUAL COGNITION 9

shared an element—may be competitive (see also Fiser & Aslin, 2002) rather
than cooperative.
Given that the evidence suggested that learning did not occur on the level
of the triplets, subsequent analyses were restricted to pairs and, in particular,
to the first pair of each triplet. The restriction of analyses to the first pair also
provides uniformity across the studies, as Experiment 3 only included pairs
(which were all first pairs, by definition). In addition, because the first pair
appeared before the second, this decision helps mitigate any complications
that might arise due to the possible competition between the pairs. For
example, if there are negative interactions between pair 1 and pair 2 then
including pair 2 in the analysis would introduce a lack of independence,
which could complicate the interpretation of learning comparisons between
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

the detection and search tasks. Of note, the correlational analysis described
here is intended to determine which items should be included in subsequent
comparisons of learning between the two tasks and does not itself argue for
or against the multiple-process hypothesis of statistical learning.

Analysis of learned and non-learned pairs

A key novelty of the present study is that we split each participant’s pairs into
those that were learned and those that were not learned. We did this based on
the search task, which represents the more typical measure of statistical learn-
ing and where the standard analysis is to compute the mean RT for all first
position shapes and compare that to the mean RT for all second position
shapes. Instead of averaging over all shapes in each position, our analysis con-
served information about the pairings that the shapes were assigned to for
each participant. Each pair for a participant was classified as “learned” if the
mean RT during the search task was lower for the second position shape of
that pair than for the first position (Figure 3, solid blue lines, negative
slope). If the mean RT was not lower for the second position shape of a
pair, then it was classified as “non-learned” (Figure 3, dashed red lines, zero
or positive slope). Although this classification method may not capture all
of the nuances of the extent to which a pair was learned, it provides a
simple dichotomous measure of learning from the search task that can
then be related to the independent data from the detection task (see
Figure S1 for confirmation that this analysis is reliable and consistent with
the number of times that the second position RTs are faster than those of
the first position RTs within each of the six blocks of the search task).
To analyse learning of each pair separately (averaging across repetitions of
each item in the detection and search tasks), we employed a modified 2 × 2
(position: first/second × learning status: learned/non-learned) factorial
ANOVA (see Supplemental data “Statistical analyses” for details). After the
interaction had been calculated, we used planned paired-samples t-tests to
analyse the simple effects of position across learned and non-learned pairs.
 10 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Figure 3. Mean RTs of each pair across participants for the search task of Experiment
1. “Search learned” were pairs showing learning in the search task in terms of a faster
RT for the second vs. first shape (102 pairs, solid blue lines, negative slope). “Search
non-learned” were pairs not showing learning (78 pairs, dashed red lines, flat or positive
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

slope). N = 36 participants (one participant, comprising five pairs, omitted from figure for
clarity, due to RTs greater than 1000 ms).

Because the search and detection tasks were independent of one another,
using this method to analyse the pairs did not raise any issues of spurious
dependencies between the results of the search task and the results of the
detection task. Additionally, we modelled these results using 10,000 permu-
tations of the data to discover how often we would expect results similar to
those reported below, in which the detection task reveals opposite patterns
of RT than the search task. The resulting likelihood was less than 0.1%
(p < .001) of obtaining an effect similar to this by chance.

Results and discussion

As a basic measure of statistical learning, we examined first vs. second shape
position performance in the search and detection tasks. In accordance with
the literature, the search task showed significantly faster RTs (Figure 4;
planned one-tailed paired t-test, t(36) = 1.69, p = .05, Cohen’s d = 0.28) for

Figure 4. Mean RT in the search task of Experiment 1. Error bars reflect ±1 within-sub-
jects SEM (Loftus & Masson, 1994). N = 37.
 VISUAL COGNITION 11

the second (520.0 ms) compared to the first position (535.0 ms) of pairs.
However, in the detection task no effect of position (see Supplemental
data), was observed in terms of RTs (666.7 vs. 674.5 ms, respectively; t(36) =
1.08, p = .29, Cohen’s d = 0.18) or accuracy for second vs. first positions (85.6
vs. 84.8%, respectively; t(36) = 0.69, p = .50, Cohen’s d = 0.12).
Although an overall effect of statistical learning was observed in the search
task, the significance of this effect was borderline. This raises the question of
whether all pairs were learned weakly and to the same extent, or whether
some pairs were learned and others were not. This question gets to the
heart of our multiple-process hypothesis and, as can be seen in Figure 3, evi-
dence suggests that there was considerable variability across pairs in the
search RT effect, with some pairs showing an effect consistent with learning
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

and others showing the opposite. This variability may just be noise, unrelated
to performance in the detection task for the same items. Alternatively, it may
reflect true differences in item-level learning, such that our labelling of pairs as
learned or non-learned retains meaning in the detection task.
To test the multiple-process hypothesis, we examined whether learned
pairs from the search task (Figure 3, solid blue lines) elicited different perform-
ance in the detection task than non-learned pairs (Figure 3, dashed red lines).
For results of this experiment and of Experiment 2 using the full triplet struc-
ture, see Supplemental data. This pair-wise analysis differs from typical ana-
lyses in studies of statistical learning, in that we allow for the possibility that
participants did not learn each pair that they were exposed to in the same
manner.
This analysis revealed a dramatic and counterintuitive negative relationship
between the detection task from exposure and the search task from the post-
test (Figure 5). The pairs classified as learned in the search task (N = 106 pairs,
or 212 shapes) and the pairs classified as non-learned in the search task (N =
79, or 158 shapes) showed a significant interaction (position × learning status)
for RT (F(1,366) = 7.00, p = .0085, η 2 = 0.019) although not accuracy (F(1,366) =
1.36, p = .24, η 2 = 0.0037) in the detection task. For RTs, non-learned pairs (i.e.,
those not showing learning in the search task) did show learning in the detec-
tion task, with faster responses for second vs. first positions (645.7 vs. 670.7
ms, respectively; t(78) = 2.42, p = .018, Cohen’s d = 0.27). This finding of learn-
ing in the detection task for pairs not showing learning in the search task
cannot be explained by a speed-accuracy tradeoff, as accuracy was numeri-
cally higher for the second vs. first positions (87.7 vs. 85.6%, respectively) of
the non-learned pairs (t(78) = 1.46, p = .15, Cohen’s d = 0.16). In contrast,
learned pairs (i.e., those showing learning in the search task) exhibited no
learning in the detection task for second vs. first RTs (684.3 vs. 677.9 ms,
respectively; t(105) = 0.79, p = .43, Cohen’s d = 0.076) or accuracy (84.0 vs.
84.2%, respectively; t(105) = 0.22, p = .82, Cohen’s d = 0.015). Notably, the
reliable decrease in RT for non-learned second position in the detection
 12 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Figure 5. Detection task results in Experiment 1 split by the search task, in terms of (A)
accuracy and (B) RT. “Search learned” were pairs that demonstrated learning in the sub-
sequent search task (solid blue lines). “Search non-learned” were pairs that did not
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

demonstrate learning in the subsequent search task (dashed red lines). Error bars
reflect ±1 within-subjects SEM. N = 37. (N of pairs in blue curves = 106; N of pairs in
red curves = 79.)

task implies that statistical learning occurred for those pairs, as there was no
information available to the participant about the upcoming shape except for
the statistical regularities governing the presentations. These data, showing a
dissociation between statistical learning as manifested in the detection and
search tasks, are consistent with the predictions of the multiple-process
hypothesis.

Experiment 2
Although Experiment 1 provides initial support for the multiple-process
hypothesis, the counter-intuitive nature of the result compelled us to replicate
the finding. Furthermore, to better understand the dissociation between
learning on the detection and search tasks, and to validate the dissociation,
in Experiment 2 we replaced the search task with a recognition task, in
which participants were asked to judge whether a sequence had occurred
during exposure or not, and to rate their confidence in the judgment.
The recognition task was selected as potentially being more sensitive to
different components of memory than the classically described two-alterna-
tive-forced-choice familiarity test in statistical learning (e.g., Fiser & Aslin,
2002). Research indicates that familiarity and recognition judgments may cor-
respond to different aspects of encoded memories (Wixted, 2007; Yonelinas,
1994) and we hypothesized that different memory judgments might map
onto the learned/non-learned dissociations seen in Experiment 1. For
example, pairs rated with “Remember” (see Methods below) might corre-
spond to the learned pairs of Experiment 1 and pairs rated as “Familiar”
might correspond to the non-learned pairs. However, regardless of infor-
mation gained from the ratings, the main purpose of this experiment was
 VISUAL COGNITION 13

to replicate the results of Experiment 1 and generalize the dissociation of stat-

istical learning measures using a different learning measure.

Methods
Participants
Forty-one undergraduates at the University of California, Riverside, aged
18–22 (26 females), participated in this experiment (sample size again deter-
mined by how many students could be recruited within a quarter from the UC
Riverside undergraduate subject pool). Inability to complete both tasks satis-
factorily resulted in the exclusion of four participants beyond the 41 included
in the study. As in Experiment 1, if participants were excluded then their data
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

were not analysed beyond determining their response rate.

Stimuli and apparatus

The stimuli and display apparatus were identical to Experiment 1, except for
the differences noted here. Stimuli were displayed on a 48.26 cm wide Sony
Trinitron CRT monitor connected to an Apple Mac mini computer running
OSX 10.5.6. Mediating the connection from monitor to computer was a Data-
pixx processor (VPixx Technologies) that enables a 16-bit DAC, allowing for a
256-fold increase in the display’s possible contrast values. Responses were col-
lected using a RESPONSEPixx button box (VPixx Technologies) that enables
microsecond precision of response latency measurement. Tones were pre-
sented using a small speaker placed behind the monitor. Participants’
heads were restrained with a chin rest 69.85 cm from the screen.

Detection task
The exposure and detection task were identical to Experiment 1.

Recognition task
A recognition task was used instead of the search task for the post-test.
Responses were provided on a multidimensional “New/Old” and “Familiar/
Remember” scale (Figure 6; adapted from Ingram, Mickes, & Wixted, 2012).
On this scale, participants reported with a single response whether a
sequence was new or old, rated their confidence, and, in the case of old
responses, whether they recollected any details surrounding prior experiences
with the sequence. If participants recalled any such details, for example a
specific instance when that sequence occurred, they responded with the
“R” scale for remember. If they did not recall specific details but simply had
a feeling that they had seen the sequence before, they responded with the
“F” scale for familiar. Stickers were placed on the number-pad of the keyboard
to match the scale shown in Figure 6.
 14 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Figure 6. Response scale used during the recognition task. “F” stands for “Familiar” and
“R” stands for “Remember”. Size of numbers and letters corresponds to confidence levels,
with 1 and 6 being the most confident in a “New” or “Old” response, respectively.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

In each of 10 trials, participants were exposed to a sequence of three of the

shapes seen during exposure, presented with the same SOA and ISI as before.
After the last shape was displayed, a response query appeared on screen and
participants reported whether that sequence (i.e., those three shapes in that
exact order) had occurred during exposure. The 10 trials consisted of the five
intact triplets, which had occurred repeatedly during exposure, and five
rearranged triplets, which contained the same exposed shapes but in an
order that could not have occurred during exposure. After obtaining the rec-
ognition judgments, we confined our multiple-process analyses to the first
two shapes, i.e., the first pair, of each triplet for the reasons provided in Exper-
iment 1.

Results and discussion

To test the multiple-process hypothesis, we coded the detection task perform-
ance according to whether an intact pair was correctly identified as “Old” in
the recognition task (“Recognition learned”) or incorrectly identified as
“New” (“Recognition non-learned”). Consistent with the hypothesis (see
Figure 7), learned pairs (N = 139 pairs, or 278 shapes) and non-learned pairs
(N = 66 pairs, or 132 shapes) showed a significant interaction (position × learn-
ing status) for RT (F(1,406) = 10.41, p = .0014, η 2 = 0.025) and a marginal inter-
action for accuracy (F(1,406) = 2.90, p = .089, η 2 = 0.007). Learned pairs (i.e.,
those that were correctly identified in the recognition task) showed a signifi-
cant drop in detection accuracy for the second vs. first positions (87.2 vs.
90.6%, respectively; t(138) = 3.15, p = .002, Cohen’s d = 0.27) and no significant
difference in RT for the second vs. first positions (603.4 vs. 601.0 ms, respect-
ively; t(138) = 0.41, p = .68, Cohen’s d = 0.036). For non-learned pairs (i.e., those
that were not correctly identified in the recognition task), RT showed a signifi-
cant decrease for the second vs. first positions (579.9 vs. 608.4 ms, respect-
ively; t(65) = 3.32, p = .0015, Cohen’s d = 0.41) and no significant difference
 VISUAL COGNITION 15

Figure 7. Detection task results in Experiment 2 split by the recognition task, in terms of
(A) accuracy and (B) RT. “Recognition learned” were pairs correctly identified in the sub-
sequent recognition task (solid blue lines). “Recognition non-learned” were pairs not cor-
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

rectly identified in the subsequent recognition task (dashed red lines). Error bars reflect
±1 within-subjects SEM. N = 41. (N of pairs in blue curves = 139; N of pairs in red curves =
66.)

in accuracy for the second vs. first positions (90.8 vs. 91.1%, respectively; t(65)
= 0.20, p = .84, Cohen’s d = 0.024). These results conceptually replicate those
of Experiment 1 and suggest that, unlike the detection task, the recognition
task from this experiment and the search task from Experiment 1 may tap
into the same statistical learning process—at least based on their shared
opposition to the detection task.
To understand these results in greater detail, learned pairs were further
subdivided into “Familiar” or “Remember” retrieval modes (Figure 8). Treating
learning status as a three-level factor (Familiar, N = 78 pairs, or 156 shapes;
Remember, N = 61 pairs, or 122 shapes; and New, N = 66, or 132 shapes),
there was a significant interaction (position × learning status) for RT
(F(2,404) = 5.44, p = .0047, η 2 = 0.026) and a marginal interaction for accuracy
(F(2,404) = 2.40, p = .092, η 2 = 0.011). The decrease in accuracy for the second
position vs. the first position in learned pairs was driven by Familiar (84.7 vs.
89.4%, respectively; t(77) = 2.89, p = .005, Cohen’s d = 0.33) but not Remember
pairs (90.3 vs. 92.1%, respectively; t(60) = 1.35, p = .18, Cohen’s d = 0.17). The
difference in RT for the second position as compared to the first was not
reliable for Familiar (615.7 vs. 616.8 ms, respectively; t(77) = 0.13, p = .90,
Cohen’s d = 0.015) nor Remember (587.5 vs. 580.9 ms, respectively; t(60) =
0.90, p = .37, Cohen’s d = 0.11) pairs. As reported above, only the non-
learned pairs showed a decrease in RT for the second position.
These results suggest a potential dissociation between remembered and
familiar pairs with the primary distinction being faster and more accurate
detection for the remembered pairs. Although we had hypothesized that a
familiar/remember dissociation might be linked to the learned/non-learned
dissociation seen in Experiment 1, the data did not support this hypothesis.
Instead, both the familiar and remember pairs are consistent with the
 16 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Figure 8. Detection task results in Experiment 2 split by the Familiar/Remember ratings

in the recognition task, in terms of (A) accuracy and (B) RT. “Recognition learned (Fam-
iliar)” were pairs correctly identified in the subsequent recognition task and given a
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

“Familiar” rating (solid blue lines). “Recognition learned (Remember)” were pairs correctly
identified in the subsequent recognition task and given a “Remember” rating (dotted
black lines). “Recognition non-learned” were pairs not correctly identified in the sub-
sequent recognition task (dashed red lines). Error bars reflect ±1 within-subjects SEM.
N = 41. (N of pairs in blue curves = 78; N of pairs in black curves = 61; N of pairs in red
curves = 66).

learned pairs of Experiment 1 and the results as a whole replicate the learned/
non-learned dissociation found in Experiment 1.

Experiment 3
Although Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, it failed to provide additional
clarity about the mechanisms underlying our results. Experiment 3 was run for
this purpose, to determine whether the facilitation for the second shape pos-
ition in the search task reflects an enhanced representation of the second
shape, the learning of an association between the first and second shapes,
or a combination of the two.
Statistical learning is typically assumed to reflect an association between
stimuli A and B, where perceiving A enables one to predict the subsequent
appearance of B (Schapiro et al., 2012). However, recent work suggests that stat-
istical learning can give rise to an enhanced salience of the second stimulus of a
pair even outside of its exposed context, and that this enhanced salience can
account for second position effects in the search task (Barakat et al., 2013).
We therefore examined whether learning in the detection and search tasks
reflects an associative and/or representational form of learning. If learning is
associative, then replacing the second shape with an out-of-context shape (a
misplaced second shape or a foil, see Methods below) should result in slower
RTs. On the other hand, if the learning reflects an enhanced representation
of the second shape, then misplaced second shapes should elicit speeded
responses even when presented out of context; in contrast, foils, which are
 VISUAL COGNITION 17

shapes not shown during exposure, should receive no such benefit. A combi-
nation of associative effects and enhancement is also possible.

Methods
Participants
Fifty-six undergraduates at the University of California, Riverside, aged 17–32
(25 females), participated in this experiment (sample size again determined by
how many students could be recruited within a quarter from the UC Riverside
undergraduate subject pool). Inability to complete both tasks satisfactorily
resulted in the exclusion of five participants beyond the 56 included in the
study. As in Experiments 1 and 2, if participants were excluded then their
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

data were not analysed beyond determining their response rate.

Stimuli and apparatus

The stimuli and apparatus were identical to Experiment 2, except that three
additional shapes were used to accommodate the conditions of this
experiment.

Detection task
The detection task during exposure was the same as Experiment 1, except as
noted. First, the stimulus regularities in Experiment 3 consisted of six pairs
rather than five triplets. Second, in blocks 11–20, one of five conditions
occurred when a target appeared on the screen (blocks 1–10 were the
same as in Experiment 1 other than the use of pairs rather than triplets).
The two “intact” target conditions were the same as in the previous exper-
iments and as in the first 10 blocks of the current experiment: the target
was either the correct first or second shape of a pair. The two “foil” target con-
ditions involved six foil shapes that were never shown in the first half of
exposure. Foils could occur as targets in either the first or second position
of a pair with equal frequency. That is, in each of the latter 10 blocks, each
of the six foil items occurred in place of the first item of a pseudorandomly
determined intact pair and during a different trial would also appear in
place of the second item of a pseudorandomly determined intact pair. The
particular foil used with each pair was randomized and counterbalanced
across blocks. The “mismatched” condition replaced a pair’s second shape
with the second shape from a different pair as was done in Barakat et al.
(2013). That is, a shape that had been seen in the first half of the exposure
task occupying a second position appeared as a target after a different first
shape. All conditions and shapes were counterbalanced to equate the
exposure of shapes and pairs.
As in Experiment 1, there were 20 blocks of exposure. In the first 10 blocks,
all pairs were presented as intact pairs. Each shape position of the six pairs was
 18 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

used as a target twice, resulting in 24 pairs that contained a target. In half of

these, the target was present and in the other half, the target was absent. The
shape used as the target was counterbalanced. A total of 1–3 intact filler pairs
were presented between target-containing pairs, which amounted to a total
of 72 pairs, or 144 shapes, per block. In the second 10 blocks, there were 60
targets per block, again half present and half absent. The 30 present targets
consisted of six instances of each of the following: intact first position,
intact second position, foil first position, foil second position, and mismatched
second position. Combined with 1–3 intact filler pairs between each target-
containing pair, this amounted to a total of 180 pairs, or 360 shapes, per block.

Search task
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

The search task was similar to Experiment 1, except as noted. There were five
blocks of 30 trials each. Within a block, every shape from each condition (first
and second intact, first and second foil, mismatch) was used once as a target,
including the six foils when the trial called for one of those two conditions.
Given that the mismatched condition required the second shape of a pair
to be replaced with another pair’s second shape, the pair from which the
second shape was drawn could not be displayed on that trial (or else the
target would be displayed twice in a single trial, once as an intact second
shape and once as a mismatched second shape). Thus, each trial of the
search task displayed five of the pairs instead of all six. The omitted pair
was counterbalanced across trials and, when the mismatched condition
occurred, the missing pair was always the pair from which the replacement
shape had been drawn.

Results and discussion

Search task
We first sought overall evidence of statistical learning in the search task (Figure
9). The intact pairs showed reliably faster RTs for the second vs. first positions
(424.7 vs. 441.9 ms, respectively; t(55) = 5.38, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.72). The
second position foils (422.0 ms) and mismatched second shapes (429.9 ms)
were also found more quickly than the first intact shape (441.9 ms; t(55) =
5.93, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = 0.80 and t(55) = 3.64, p = .0006, Cohen’s d = 0.48,
respectively). Furthermore, RTs were faster for second position vs. first position
foils (422.0 vs. 434.9 ms, respectively; t(55) = 4.14, p = .00012, Cohen’s d = 0.55),
suggesting that there may have been some learning for position, regardless of
item presented. These results demonstrate that statistical learning occurred and
replicate the findings of Barakat et al. (2013), showing a benefit for shapes in the
second position even outside of their pair context.
However, our primary interest was to test the multiple-process hypothesis
by examining performance in the detection task. As in Experiment 1, we split
 VISUAL COGNITION 19

Figure 9. RTs in the search task of Experiment 3. “Intact items” were shapes from con-
ditions in which the pairs were presented intact (solid blue line). “Foil items” were shapes
from conditions in which pairs were presented with either the first or second shape
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

replaced with a foil unseen in the first 10 blocks of exposure (dashed red line). Note
that the foil items were not matched as the intact items were; the dashed line is only
to demonstrate the difference between the two position RTs. “Mismatched 2nd items”
were shapes from the condition in which the second shape of a pair was replaced
with the second shape of another pair (black point). Error bars reflect ±1 within-subjects
SEM. N = 56.

pairs according to whether they displayed a negative slope (learned) or a

flat/positive slope (non-learned) in the search task. We did this separately
for each condition.

Learned vs. non-learned pairs—intact conditions

For intact conditions, learning was measured as intact first shape RT minus
intact second shape RT, resulting in N = 179 learned pairs, or 358 shapes,
and N = 157 non-learned pairs, or 314 shapes. Results for the intact pairs repli-
cated those of Experiment 1 (Figure 10) and provide additional support for the
multiple-process hypothesis. Although neither interaction (position × learning
status) reached significance (accuracy: F(1,668) < 0.1, p = .95, η 2 < 0.001; RT:
F(1,668) = 1.01, p = .31, η 2 = 0.0015), non-learned pairs showed a simple RT
effect for second vs. first position in the detection task (542.6 vs. 553.6 ms,
respectively; t(156) = 2.24, p = .026, Cohen’s d = 0.18), whereas learned pairs
did not (556.6 vs. 561.0 ms, respectively; t(178) = 0.92, p = .36, Cohen’s d =
0.068). There was no effect in accuracy for second vs. first in either learned
pairs (89.0 vs. 88.7%, respectively; t(178) = 0.25, p = .80, Cohen’s d = 0.020) or
non-learned pairs (88.3 vs. 87.9%, respectively; t(156) = 0.32, p = .75, Cohen’s
d = 0.027).

Learned vs. non-learned pairs—foil and mismatched conditions

As in the search task, analyses of the foil and mismatched conditions in the
detection task can provide additional evidence on whether the faster per-
formance for second shapes is an associative effect rather than just a
 20 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Figure 10. Detection task results for intact, foil, and mismatched conditions in Exper-
iment 3 split by the search task, in terms of (A) accuracy and (B) RT. “Search learned”
circles were intact pairs that showed evidence of learning in the subsequent search
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

task. “Search non-learned” circles were intact pairs that did not show learning in the sub-
sequent search task. “Search learned” triangles were foils following an intact first shape
that showed learning in the subsequent search task. “Search non-learned” triangles were
foils following an intact first shape that did not show learning in the subsequent search
task. “Search learned” squares were mismatched second shapes following an intact first
shape that showed learning in the subsequent search task. “Search non-learned” squares
were mismatched second shapes following an intact first shape that did not show learn-
ing in the subsequent search task. Error bars reflect ±1 within-subjects SEM. N = 56. (N of
blue pairs in each condition = 179; N of red pairs in each condition = 157.)

speeded response for any item presented after a learned first item. The foil
and mismatched conditions indicated that both the learned and non-
learned pairs displayed some learning in the detection task (Figure 10).
However, the nature of these effects differed. For the learned pairs, the
overall pattern was slower RTs for second shapes relative to intact first
shapes. This was only significant for foil second shapes (571.2 vs. 561.0 ms;
t(178) = 2.10, p = .037, Cohen’s d = 0.16), not mismatched second shapes
(564.1 vs. 561.0 ms; t(178) = 0.70, p = .49, Cohen’s d = 0.052). Comparing just
second positions of the learned pairs, RTs were significantly slower for foil
vs. intact shapes (571.2 vs. 556.6 ms, respectively; t(178) = 3.14, p = .002,
Cohen’s d = 0.23) and marginally slower for mismatched vs. intact shapes
(564.1 vs. 556.6 ms, respectively; t(178) = 1.68, p = .094, Cohen’s d = 0.12).
These results provide support for the hypothesis that associative learning
occurred between the first and second positions of the learned pairs.
For the non-learned pairs, the overall pattern was equivalent RTs for second
shapes relative to first intact shapes. This was true for both foil second shapes
(549.1 vs. 553.6 ms; t(156) = 0.91, p = .36, Cohen’s d = 0.072) and mismatched
second shapes (553.8 vs. 553.6 ms; t(156) = 0.04, p = .97, Cohen’s d = 0.0033).
Comparing just second positions, RTs were significantly slower for mis-
matched vs. intact shapes (553.8 vs. 542.6 ms, respectively; t(156) = 2.41,
p = .017, Cohen’s d = 0.19) and not significantly different for foil vs.
intact shapes (549.1 vs. 542.6 ms, respectively; t(156) = 1.46, p = .15, Cohen’s
 VISUAL COGNITION 21

d = 0.12). This can be considered a lack of facilitation for the mismatched

second shapes and is also suggestive of associative learning being displayed
in the detection task for the non-learned-pairs.
Considering the learned and non-learned pairs together, our data are con-
sistent with the associative learning hypothesis. Whenever the second shape
in a pair is replaced, the response is slowed. Using this measure of learning,
there was a comparable magnitude of associative learning displayed in the
detection task for both learned pairs (11.1 ms) and non-learned pairs (8.9
ms). However, the manner in which the violation of the associative prediction
manifested itself (slowing for learned but a lack of speeding for non-learned)
provides further evidence of dissociation between detection and search
measures of statistical learning. Combined with the pattern of results for
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

the intact conditions, which are analogous to the conditions of Experiments

1 and 2 and replicate those patterns of results, these data again are consistent
with the predictions of the multiple-process hypothesis for statistical learning.

General discussion
For most studies of statistical learning, a single test is used to index learning.
Here we show that this approach underestimates the extent of learning that
has taken place. Specifically, we found that statistical learning can be reflected
in multiple behavioural tasks and, critically, that these tasks do not provide
redundant information. One aspect of learning was revealed in the search
task, where lower latencies were found for predictable shapes. A dissociated
aspect of learning was observed in the detection task, again indicated by
better performance for predictable shapes, but only for those items that did
not display learning in the search task. Similar results were obtained for rec-
ognition memory judgments, where correctly recognized regularities did
not show a detection effect, and other regularities showed a detection
effect but were forgotten in the recognition test, and the results were
obtained again with the intact pairs of Experiment 3.
This manner of double dissociation of performance across tasks is classi-
cally taken as evidence for different processes in cognitive research (Chun,
1997; Gabrieli, Fleischman, Keane, Reminger, & Morrell, 1995) and defies the
alternative explanation that different tasks will naturally have different sensi-
tivities because of the starkly opposite results seen in the dependent variables
of the compared tasks. If the tasks were merely displaying different levels of
sensitivities for the same process, we would expect similar results for both
tasks, albeit with different effect sizes. Instead we observe results that consist-
ently demonstrate one pattern for one task and an opposite pattern for
another task. The observed search, recognition, and detection effects
cannot be explained by individual shapes or happenstance groupings of
the shapes, as these were randomized and counterbalanced across
 22 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

participants. Furthermore, in Experiment 3, we provided evidence that disso-

ciable patterns of learning for different pairs (positive vs. negative second pos-
ition RT effects) can be observed within the same detection task. The question
then becomes: why is learning expressed differently depending on the task?
A logical answer is that there are multiple processes that underlie different
aspects of visual statistical learning. Moreover, to account for the observation
that any given regularity is only reflected in one task, these systems may
compete with each other. Neuroscientific investigations of statistical learning
are consistent with this interpretation. Specifically, statistical learning is sup-
ported by at least two memory systems in the brain, the hippocampus and
the striatum (Durrant et al., 2013; Schapiro et al., 2014, 2012; Turk-Browne
et al., 2009, 2010). These systems have been shown to compete with each
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

other during learning (Packard, 1999; Poldrack et al., 2001; but see Sadeh,
Shohamy, Levy, Reggev, & Maril, 2011). The left inferior frontal cortex also sup-
ports statistical learning (Karuza et al., 2013; Turk-Browne et al., 2009), and it has
been suggested that learning in frontal cortex differs from the striatum in terms
of the speed of learning (Pasupathy & Miller, 2005). Different learning processes
in the hippocampus, striatum, and frontal cortex may therefore occur at differ-
ent rates and produce different kinds of behavioural effects (e.g., the hippo-
campus may underlie recognition judgments). Identifying other specific
mechanisms that might underlie these processes will require future experimen-
tal and theoretical work. A first step could be to generalize existing compu-
tational models of statistical learning to account for multiple behavioural
measures. Currently, these models account for either recognition (e.g., TRACX,
French, Addyman, & Mareschal, 2011; PARSER, Perruchet & Vinter, 1998) or pre-
diction (e.g., SRN, Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991; Elman, 1990), but not both.
An intriguing result from Experiment 2 is the difference in performance for
regularities that were given “Familiar” versus “Remember” ratings. As dis-
cussed above, the dissociation seen in the detection task for familiar/remem-
ber pairs did not mirror the dissociation seen for learned/non-learned pairs as
we had hypothesized it might. However, the fact that there is a visible differ-
ence between explicitly given “Familiar” and “Remember” ratings suggests
that participants are able to effectively rank their implicit memories of the
regularities and indicates a shade of grey between classic notions of implicit
and explicit knowledge (Bertels, Franco, & Destrebecqz, 2012). This explicit
sense of the richness of retrieval is intriguing because statistical learning is
often thought to be an implicit process (Kim et al., 2009). Indeed, out of
134 participants, not a single participant reported consciously detecting any
pattern to the shapes displayed in the experiment. Ultimately the familiar/
remember aspect of this experiment failed to reveal a further dissociation
of learning patterns across pairs but, nevertheless, Experiment 2 provided
compelling results regarding differences in processing between “Remem-
bered” and “Familiar” pairs which warrants further study.
 VISUAL COGNITION 23

Experiment 3 provides evidence that the learning in both the detection

and search tasks is associative. The results for the detection task as split by
the search task show that when the second shape of a pair is replaced with
a shape that it does not normally occur with, there is a slowing of RT
(learned pairs) or a lack of facilitation (non-learned pairs). As discussed
above, this different pattern of results for learned and non-learned pairs pro-
vides further evidence that the detection and search tasks are measuring two
separate learning processes. This does not rule out the possibility that percep-
tual enhancement of the second shape also occurred (Barakat et al., 2013). Of
note, RTs for mismatched second shapes were faster than for intact first
shapes in the search task. Thus, a mix of associative and enhancement
effects can jointly determine performance in statistical learning tasks.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

In sum, the data presented here provide evidence that visual statistical
learning might be composed of dissociable processes that can be revealed
through different behavioural tasks. While it is possible that the different
tasks used in the experiments reveal different aspects of a complex
memory representation, the multiple-process model is consistent with neuro-
science research showing that there are multiple brain systems that are sen-
sitive to statistical regularities in the environment (Schapiro & Turk-Browne,
2015). Together, these findings challenge a common assumption that differ-
ent operational methods of measuring statistical learning are interchangeable
in terms of their interpretation. We caution against treating different measures
of statistical learning as equivalent, since this not only discards useful variance
in the data, but also gives the false impression that statistical learning is a
single process rather than a multifaceted collection of processes. Our findings
are useful in that they provide a foundation for future research in statistical
learning that should more routinely use multiple tasks and seek to clarify dis-
sociations of learning and the brain structures that underlie these dissociated
processes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability
statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321–324.
Baker, C. I., Olson, C. R., & Behrmann, M. (2004). Role of attention and perceptual group-
ing in visual statistical learning. Psychological Science, 15(7), 460–466.
Barakat, B. K., Seitz, A. R., & Shams, L. (2013). The effect of statistical learning on internal
stimulus representations: Predictable items are enhanced even when not predicted.
Cognition, 129(2), 205–211. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.003
 24 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Bertels, J., Franco, A., & Destrebecqz, A. (2012). How implicit is visual statistical learning?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1425–
1431. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027210
Campbell, K. L., Healey, M. K., Lee, M. M. S., Zimerman, S., & Hasher, L. (2012). Age differ-
ences in visual statistical learning. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 650–656. http://doi.
org/10.1037/a0026780
Chalk, M., Seitz, A. R., & Seriès, P. (2010). Rapidly learned stimulus expectations alter per-
ception of motion. Journal of Vision, 10(8), 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1167/10.8.2
Chun, M. M. (1997). Types and tokens in visual processing: A double dissociation
between the attentional blink and repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 738–755. http://doi.org/10.
1037/0096-1523.23.3.738
Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(3), 235–253. http://doi.org/10.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

1037/0096-3445.120.3.235
Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-constrained statistical learning of
tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 24–39.
Durrant, S. J., Cairney, S. A., & Lewis, P. A. (2013). Overnight consolidation aids the trans-
fer of statistical knowledge from the medial temporal lobe to the striatum. Cerebral
Cortex, 23(10), 2467–2478. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs244
Durrant, S. J., Taylor, C., Cairney, S. A., & Lewis, P. A. (2011). Sleep-dependent consolida-
tion of statistical learning. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1322–1331. http://doi.org/10.
1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.015
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211. http://
doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Unsupervised statistical learning of higher-order spatial
structures from visual scenes. Psychological Science, 12(6), 499–504.
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from
visual shape sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 28(3), 458–467.
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. N. (2005). Encoding multielement scenes: Statistical learning of visual
feature hierarchies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 521–537.
Fletcher, P., Büchel, C., Josephs, O., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. (1999). Learning-related neur-
onal responses in prefrontal cortex studied with functional neuroimaging. Cerebral
Cortex, 9(2), 168–178.
French, R. M., Addyman, C., & Mareschal, D. (2011). TRACX: A recognition-based connec-
tionist framework for sequence segmentation and chunk extraction. Psychological
Review, 118(4), 614–636. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025255
Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A., & Afek, L. (2013). What predicts successful literacy
acquisition in a second language? Psychological Science, 24(7), 1243–1252. http://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472207
Gabrieli, J. D. E., Fleischman, D. A., Keane, M. M., Reminger, S. L., & Morrell, F. (1995).
Double dissociation between memory systems underlying explicit and implicit
memory in the human brain. Psychological Science, 6(2), 76–82.
Hunt, R., & Aslin, R. (2001). Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: Access to
separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 130(4), 658–680.
 VISUAL COGNITION 25

Ingram, K. M., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Recollection can be weak and familiarity
can be strong. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
38(2), 325–339.
Karuza, E. A., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Starling, S. J., Tivarus, M. E., & Bavelier, D. (2013).
The neural correlates of statistical learning in a word segmentation task: An
fMRI study. Brain and Language, 127(1), 46–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.
11.007
Kim, R., Seitz, A., Feenstra, H., & Shams, L. (2009). Testing assumptions of statistical
learning: Is it long-term and implicit? Neuroscience Letters, 461(2), 145–149. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2009.06.030
Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in
infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83(2),
B35–B42.
Le Dantec, C. C., Melton, E. E., & Seitz, A. R. (2012). A triple dissociation between learning
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

of target, distractors, and spatial contexts. Journal of Vision, 12(2), 1–12. Introduction.
http://doi.org/10.1167/12.2.5
Lieberman, M. D., Chang, G. Y., Chiao, J., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Knowlton, B. J. (2004). An
event-related fMRI study of artificial grammar learning in a balanced chunk strength
design. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(3), 427–438. http://doi.org/10.1162/
089892904322926764
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject
designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.
Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Temporal contextual cuing of visual attention. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1299–1313.
Packard, M. G. (1999). Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or
caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(22), 12881–12886.
Pasupathy, A., & Miller, E. K. (2005). Different time courses of learning-related activity in
the prefrontal cortex and striatum. Nature, 433(7028), 873–876. http://doi.org/10.
1038/nature03287
Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: One
phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(5), 233–8. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.006
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of
Memory and Language, 39(2), 246–263. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2576
Poldrack, R. A., Clark, J., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., Shohamy, D., Creso Moyano, J., Myers, C., &
Gluck, M. A. (2001). Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature, 414
(6863), 546–550. http://doi.org/10.1038/35107080
Sadeh, T., Shohamy, D., Levy, D. R., Reggev, N., & Maril, A. (2011). Cooperation between
the hippocampus and the striatum during episodic encoding. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 23(7), 1597–1608.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old
infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928.
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone
sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70(1), 27–52.
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental
language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear.
Psychological Science, 8(2), 101–105.
Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners.
Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 484–494.
 26 B. C. BAYS ET AL.

Schapiro, A. C., Gregory, E., Landau, B., McCloskey, M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2014). The
necessity of the medial temporal lobe for statistical learning. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 26(8), 1736–1747. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00578
Schapiro, A. C., Kustner, L. V, & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2012). Shaping of object represen-
tations in the human medial temporal lobe based on temporal regularities. Current
Biology, 22(17), 1622–1627. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.056
Schapiro, A. C., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2015). Statistical learning. In A. W. Toga & R. A.
Poldrack (Eds.), Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference (pp. 501–506). New York:
Academic Press.
Seger, C., Prabhakaran, V., Poldrack, R. A., & Gabrieli, J. (2000). Neural activity differs
between explicit and implicit learning of artificial grammar strings: An fMRI study.
Psychobiology, 28(3), 283–292.
Toro, J. M., Sinnett, S., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2005). Speech segmentation by statistical
learning depends on attention. Cognition, 97(2), B25–B34.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:08 03 April 2016

Turk-Browne, N. B., Isola, P. J., Scholl, B., & Treat, T. A. (2008). Multidimensional visual
statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 34(2), 399–407.
Turk-Browne, N. B., Jungé, J. A., & Scholl, B. J. (2005). The automaticity of visual statistical
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 552–564.
Turk-Browne, N. B., & Scholl, B. (2009). Flexible visual statistical learning: transfer across
space and time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 35(1), 195–202.
Turk-Browne, N. B., Scholl, B. J., Chun, M. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Neural evidence of
statistical learning: Efficient detection of visual regularities without awareness.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(10), 1934–1945.
Turk-Browne, N. B., Scholl, B., Johnson, M. K., & Chun, M. M. (2010). Implicit perceptual
anticipation triggered by statistical learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(33), 11177–
11187.
Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition
memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 152–176.
Yang, C. D. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8
(10), 451–456.
Yang, J., & Li, P. (2012). Brain networks of explicit and implicit learning. PloS One, 7(8),
e42993. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042993
Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evi-
dence for a dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1341–1354.
Zhao, J., Al-Aidroos, N., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2013). Attention is spontaneously biased
toward regularities. Psychological Science, 24(5), 667–677. http://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797612460407
Zhao, J., Ngo, N., McKendrick, R., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). Mutual interference
between statistical summary perception and statistical learning. Psychological
Science, 22(9), 1212–1219. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419304