Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i2 Among learners receiving metalinguistic prompts, procedural memory (SRT) significantly predicted immediate UGJT posttest scores for regular past tense forms (β = .33, p = .00), but was not a significant predictor for the recast or explicit correction groups. → 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 · i2 · causal · r1

Multiple regression analyses for the regular past tense UGJT across three classroom CF groups (recast n=32, explicit correction n=30, metalinguistic prompts n=30), with pretest as covariate. The SRT predictor reached significance only for the metalinguistic prompt immediate posttest (β = .33, p = .00, adjusted R² = .77); the article reports "significant predictors of only the UGJT immediate posttest scores of the metalinguistic prompt group."

"Procedural memory scores measured using the SRT were significant predictors of only the UGJT immediate posttest scores of the metalinguistic prompt group."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Declarative memory shows no association with regular past tense learning under any CF type — related
Pretest scores significantly predict posttest scores across CF types and outcome measures — related
Procedural memory shows no association with irregular past tense learning under any CF type — related
No group differences on immediate posttests for either feedback type on either measure — related
Declarative memory predicts immediate UGJT posttest gains for irregular past tense only under recasts — related
CF treatment improved regular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT with large effects — a broader claim this one bears on

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`procedural-memory-predicts-regular-past-ugjt-metalinguistic-prompts`
`title`	`Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts`
`description`	`Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2023`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-09-28`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `yusuke-sato-2023`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.