Is an attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning valid?

Pacton and Perruchet (2008) reported that participants who were asked to process adjacent elements located within a sequence of digits learned adjacent dependencies but did not learn nonadjacent dependencies and conversely, participants who were asked to process nonadjacent digits learned nonadjacent dependencies but did not learn adjacent dependencies. In the present study, we showed that when participants were simply asked to read aloud the same sequences of digits, a task demand that did not require the intentional processing of specific elements as in standard statistical learning tasks, only adjacent dependencies were learned. The very same pattern was observed when digits were replaced by syllables. These results show that the perfect symmetry found in Pacton and Perruchet was not due to the fact that the processing of digits is less sensitive to their distance than the processing of syllables, tones, or visual shapes used in most statistical learning tasks. Moreover, the present results, completed with a reanalysis of the data collected in Pacton and Perruchet (2008), demonstrate that participants are highly sensitive to violations involving the spacing between paired elements. Overall, these results are consistent with the Pacton and Perruchet's single-process account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies, in which the joint attentional processing of the two events is a necessary and sufficient condition for learning the relation between them, irrespective of their distance. However, this account should be completed to encompass the notion that the presence or absence of an intermediate event is an intrinsic component of the representation of an association.