Not evidence for separable controlled and automatic influences in artificial grammar learning: comment on Higham,...

P. A. Higham, J. R. Vokey, and J. L. Pritchard (2000) claimed to provide evidence for separable controlled and automatic processes in artificial grammar learning. It is argued that their results are compatible with a single controlled influence: Participants might mistakenly identify more grammatical items than nongrammatical items as belonging to the other grammar, because the grammars are very similar to each other, and the nongrammatical items are relatively highly dissimilar. Participants' knowledge may be ambiguous, rather than automatic. It is further argued that even if Higham et al.'s data do support automatic effects, opposition logic, in this case, cannot be said to have succeeded where dissociation logic has failed, because it is used to address the issue of whether participants have conscious control over the knowledge they acquire, rather than whether they possess conscious awareness of that knowledge.