Study 2 replicates the negative SL–EF factor 1 correlation while EF factor 2 (short-term memory) shows no association with implicit SL¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In Study 2, EF factor 1 again negatively correlated with implicit SL (r = -0.170, p = 0.033), but EF factor 2 did not (r = -0.034, p = 0.672). → Pedraza 2024

Evidence¶

Pedraza 2024¶

Pedraza, F., Farkas, B. C., Vékony, T., Haesebaert, F., Phelipon, R., Mihalecz, I., Janacsek, K., Anders, R., Tillmann, B., Plancher, G. & Németh, D. (2024). Evidence for a competitive relationship between executive functions and statistical learning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00243-9

q3 · i1 · associational · r2

Linear mixed model and correlation analysis of the 157-participant Hungarian university sample re-analysed from a prior dataset. The quote reports the replicated negative association "Pearson's r = −0.170, 95% CI = [-0.319, -0.014], p = 0.033".

"EF factor 1 scores significantly negatively correlated with average implicit SL learning scores, and with a similar effect size, as in Study 1 (Fig. 4b, Pearson's r = −0.170, 95% CI = [-0.319, -0.014], p = 0.033"

Pedraza 2024 (2)¶

Pedraza, F., Farkas, B. C., Vékony, T., Haesebaert, F., Phelipon, R., Mihalecz, I., Janacsek, K., Anders, R., Tillmann, B., Plancher, G. & Németh, D. (2024). Evidence for a competitive relationship between executive functions and statistical learning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00243-9

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Same Study 2 sample and models; the null association for the short-term-memory factor was not significant: "Pearson's r = −0.034, 95% CI = [-0.190, 0.123], p = 0.672". Equivalence was not tested; no effect size beyond the small r is interpretable.

"EF factor 2 scores did not correlate significantly with average implicit SL learning scores (Factor 2: Pearson's r = −0.034, 95% CI = [-0.190, 0.123], p = 0.672, Spearman's r h o = −0.023, 95% CI = [-0.179, 0.134], p = 0.771, BF-0 = 0.145)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Working Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Executive ability affected general skill learning in Study 2 but not Study 1, and affected overall implicit SL rather than the learning trajectory — related
• Implicit statistical learning is negatively correlated with a latent executive-function factor comprising verbal fluency and complex working memory in Study 1 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• A fixed-effect meta-analysis pooling both studies yields a pooled negative correlation of r = -0.115 between EF factor scores and implicit SL — a broader claim this one bears on
• At the task level, implicit SL correlates negatively with most individual executive-function measures, strongest with verbal fluency tasks — related
• Participants showed robust implicit statistical learning and general skill learning on the ASRT task in both studies — related