Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

458

Investigating individual differences in linguistic statistical learning and their relation to rhythmic and cognitive abilities: A speech segmentation experiment with online neural trackinguse asterix (*) to get italics
Iris van der Wulp, Marijn Struiksma, Laura Batterink, Frank WijnenPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2023
<p><strong>Objective:</strong> Statistical Learning (SL) is an essential mechanism for speech segmentation. Importantly, individual differences in SL ability are associated with language acquisition. For instance, better SL correlated with a larger vocabulary size and impaired SL was found in populations with language impairments. The aim of the current study is to contribute to uncovering the underpinnings of such individual differences in auditory SL for word segmentation. We hypothesize that individuals with better musical – specifically rhythmic – abilities will show better SL for speech segmentation.&nbsp;</p> <p><br data-mce-fragment="1"><strong>Methodology:</strong> Participants will be exposed to an artificial language consisting of trisyllabic nonsense words. Recent methodological innovations allow online assessment of SL via <em>electroencephalography </em>(EEG) measures of neural entrainment. The current study will use this EEG method to measure individual SL performance during exposure. Aiming to assess individual differences, we will link the neural measure of SL to a battery of tests assessing possible individual differences by measuring rhythmic, musical, and cognitive abilities, as well as vocabulary size.</p> <p><strong>Expected results:</strong> We predict that individuals with better rhythmic abilities will show greater neural entrainment to external auditory rhythms, supporting better extraction of the transitional probabilities between syllables. Specifically, we expect to see greater neural entrainment in these individuals to the frequency of the tri-syllabic words in our stimuli, indicative of SL, than individuals with lower scores on the rhythm perception tasks. Furthermore, we exploratively investigate if larger working memory capacity contributes to better SL as captured online by the EEG measure. The question of whether vocabulary size in adulthood contributes to better SL is also explorative, as the connection between SL and vocabulary size has predominantly been researched in children. If this association persists in the adult population, it is anticipated to manifest as a positive correlation.&nbsp;​<br data-mce-fragment="1">​​​​​​​</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Statistical learning, speech segmentation, individual differences, neural oscillations, EEG, phase-locking, rhythmic abilities, cognitive abilities
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Humanities, Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2023-05-03 10:53:51
Elizabeth Wonnacott