The speed of detection vs. segmentation from continuous sequences: Evidence for an anticipation mechanism for detection through a computational model

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper presents two experiments, both of which use a target detection paradigm to investigate the speed of statistical learning. The first experiment is a replication of Batterink, 2017, in which participants are presented with streams of uniform-length, trisyllabic nonsense words and asked to detect a target syllable. The results replicate previous findings, showing that learning (in the form of response time facilitation to later-occurring syllables within a nonsense word) occurs after a single exposure to a word. In the second experiment, participants are presented with streams of variable-length nonsense words (two trisyllabic words and two disyllabic words) and perform the same task. A similar facilitation effect was observed as in Experiment 1. The authors interpret these findings as evidence that target detection requires mechanisms different from segmentation. They present results of a computational model to simulate results from the target detection task and find that an "anticipation mechanism" can produce facilitation effects, without performing segmentation. The authors conclude that the mechanisms involved in the target detection task are different from those involved in the word segmentation task.

Strengths:

The paper presents multiple experiments that provide internal replication of a key experimental finding, in which response times are facilitated after a single exposure to an embedded pseudoword. Both experimental data and results from a computational model are presented, providing converging approaches for understanding and interpreting the main results. The data are analyzed very thoroughly using mixed effects models with multiple explanatory factors.

Weaknesses:

In my view, the main weaknesses of this study relate to the theoretical interpretation of the results.

(1) The key conclusion from these findings is that the facilitation effect observed in the target detection paradigm is driven by a different mechanism (or mechanisms) than those involved in word segmentation. The argument here I think is somewhat unclear and weak, for several reasons:

First, there appears to be some blurring in what exactly is meant by the term "segmentation" with some confusion between segmentation as a concept and segmentation as a paradigm.
Conceptually, segmentation refers to the segmenting of continuous speech into words. However, this conceptual understanding of segmentation (as a theoretical mechanism) is not necessarily what is directly measured by "traditional" studies of statistical learning, which typically (at least in adults) involve exposure to a continuous speech stream followed by a forced-choice recognition task of words versus recombined foil items (part-words or nonwords). To take the example provided by the authors, a participant presented with the sequence GHIABCDEFABCGHI may endorse ABC as being more familiar than BCG, because ABC is presented more frequently together and the learned association between A and B is stronger than between C and G. However, endorsement of ABC over BCG does not necessarily mean that the participant has "segmented" ABC from the speech stream, just as faster reaction times in responding to syllable C versus A do not necessarily indicate successful segmentation. As the authors argue on page 7, "an encounter to a sequence in which two elements co-occur (say, AB) would theoretically allow the learner to use the predictive relationship during a subsequent encounter (that A predicts B)." By the same logic, encoding the relationship between A and B could also allow for the above-chance endorsement of items that contain AB over items containing a weaker relationship.

Both recognition performance and facilitation through target detection reflect different outcomes of statistical learning. While they may reflect different aspects of the learning process and/or dissociable forms of memory, they may best be viewed as measures of statistical learning, rather than mechanisms in and of themselves.

(2) The key manipulation between experiments 1 and 2 is the length of the words in the syllable sequences, with words either constant in length (experiment 1) or mixed in length (experiment 2). The authors show that similar facilitation levels are observed across this manipulation in the current experiments. By contrast, they argue that previous findings have found that performance is impaired for mixed-length conditions compared to fixed-length conditions. Thus, a central aspect of the theoretical interpretation of the results rests on prior evidence suggesting that statistical learning is impaired in mixed-length conditions. However, it is not clear how strong this prior evidence is. There is only one published paper cited by the authors - the paper by Hoch and colleagues - that supports this conclusion in adults (other mentioned studies are all in infants, which use very different measures of learning). Other papers not cited by the authors do suggest that statistical learning can occur to stimuli of mixed lengths (Thiessen et al., 2005, using infant-directed speech; Frank et al., 2010 in adults). I think this theoretical argument would be much stronger if the dissociation between recognition and facilitation through RTs as a function of word length variability was demonstrated within the same experiment and ideally within the same group of participants.

(3) The authors argue for an "anticipation" mechanism in explaining the facilitation effect observed in the experiments. The term anticipation would generally be understood to imply some kind of active prediction process, related to generating the representation of an upcoming stimulus prior to its occurrence. However, the computational model proposed by the authors (page 24) does not encode anything related to anticipation per se. While it demonstrates facilitation based on prior occurrences of a stimulus, that facilitation does not necessarily depend on active anticipation of the stimulus. It is not clear that it is necessary to invoke the concept of anticipation to explain the results, or indeed that there is any evidence in the current study for anticipation, as opposed to just general facilitation due to associative learning.

In addition, related to the model, given that only bigrams are stored in the model, could the authors clarify how the model is able to account for the additional facilitation at the 3rd position of a trigram compared to the 2nd position?

(4) In the discussion of transitional probabilities (page 31), the authors suggest that "a single exposure does provide information about the transitions within the single exposure, and the probability of B given A can indeed be calculated from a single occurrence of AB." Although this may be technically true in that a calculation for a single exposure is possible from this formula, it is not consistent with the conceptual framework for calculating transitional probabilities, as first introduced by Saffran and colleagues. For example, Saffran et al. (1996, Science) describe that "over a corpus of speech there are measurable statistical regularities that distinguish recurring sound sequences that comprise words from the more accidental sound sequences that occur across word boundaries. Within a language, the transitional probability from one sound to the next will generally be highest when the two sounds follow one another within a word, whereas transitional probabilities spanning a word boundary will be relatively low." This makes it clear that the computation of transitional probabilities (i.e., Y | X) is conceptualized to reflect the frequency of XY / frequency of X, over a given language inventory, not just a single pair. Phrased another way, a single exposure to pair AB would not provide a reliable estimate of the raw frequencies with which A and AB occur across a given sample of language.

(5) In experiment 2, the authors argue that there is robust facilitation for trisyllabic and disyllabic words alike. I am not sure about the strength of the evidence for this claim, as it appears that there are some conflicting results relevant to this conclusion. Notably, in the regression model for disyllabic words, the omnibus interaction between word presentation and syllable position did not reach significance (p= 0.089). At face value, this result indicates that there was no significant facilitation for disyllabic words. The additional pairwise comparisons are thus not justified given the lack of omnibus interaction. The finding that there is no significant interaction between word presentation, word position, and word length is taken to support the idea that there is no difference between the two types of words, but could also be due to a lack of power, especially given the p-value (p = 0.010).

(6) The results plotted in Figure 2 seem to suggest that RTs to the first syllable of a trisyllabic item slow down with additional word presentations, while RTs to the final position speed up. If anything, in this figure, the magnitude of the effect seems to be greater for 1st syllable positions (e.g., the RT difference between presentation 1 and 4 for syllable position 1 seems to be numerically larger than for syllable position 3, Figure 2D). Thus, it was quite surprising to see in the results (p. 16) that RTs for syllable position 1 were not significantly different for presentation 1 vs. the later presentations (but that they were significant for positions 2 and 3 given the same comparison). Is this possibly a power issue? Would there be a significant slowdown to 1st syllables if results from both the exact replication and conceptual replication conditions were combined in the same analysis?

(7) It is difficult to evaluate the description of the PARSER simulation on page 36. Perhaps this simulation should be introduced earlier in the methods and results rather than in the discussion only.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This valuable study investigates how statistical learning may facilitate a target detection task and whether the facilitation effect is related to statistical learning of word boundaries. Solid evidence is provided that target detection and word segmentation rely on different statistical learning mechanisms.

Strengths:

The study is well designed, using the contrast between the learning of words of uniform length and words of variable length to dissociate general statistical learning effects and effects related to word segmentation.

Weaknesses:

The study relies on the contrast between word length effects on target detection and word learning. However, the study only tested the target detection condition and did not attempt to replicate the word segmentation effect. It is true that the word segmentation effect has been replicated before but it is still worth reviewing the effect size of previous studies.

The paper seems to distinguish prediction, anticipation, and statistical learning, but it is not entirely clear what each term refers to.