Procedural memory shows no association with irregular past tense learning under any CF type¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · 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? Procedural memory (SRT) was not a significant predictor of UGJT or EIT posttest scores for irregular past tense in any CF group. → 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? · associational · r2

Null regression finding for irregular past tense: SRT coefficients were non-significant across all three CF groups and both outcome measures. The article reports "no significant relationship was found between procedural memory and L2 development for any group," consistent with the D/P model prediction for irregular forms.

"Regarding procedural memory, no significant relationship was found between procedural memory and L2 development for any group."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• Declarative memory shows no association with regular past tense learning under any CF type — related
• Declarative memory predicts immediate UGJT posttest gains for irregular past tense only under recasts — related
• Pretest scores significantly predict posttest scores across CF types and outcome measures — related
• Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts — related
• Learners in all three corrective-feedback groups improve irregular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT from pretest to posttests, a within-group gain that does not separate the feedback types — related