Declarative memory shows no association with regular past tense learning under any CF type¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Declarative memory (LLAMA_B) was not a significant predictor of posttest scores for regular past tense in any of the three CF groups, on either outcome measure. → Yusuke Sato 2023

Evidence¶

Yusuke Sato 2023¶

Yusuke Sato. (2023). Interactions Among Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems, Different Linguistic Structures, and the Efficacy of Different Corrective Feedback Types. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/5/1/4

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Null regression finding reported in the discussion of the multiple regression analyses for regular past tense: LLAMA_B coefficients were non-significant across recast, explicit correction, and metalinguistic prompt groups on both UGJT and EIT. The article reports declarative memory "was not related to the efficacy of any CF for the regular past tense."

"Declarative memory was not related to the efficacy of any CF for the regular past tense, regardless of the L2 outcome measure."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Declarative memory predicts immediate UGJT posttest gains for irregular past tense only under recasts — related
• Procedural memory shows no association with irregular past tense learning under any CF type — related
• Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts — related
• Pretest scores significantly predict posttest scores across CF types and outcome measures — related