| 摘要: | 統計學習（Statistical Learning, SL）是指從環境中提取規律的能力，這種
能力與智力或工作記憶等其他基本認知能力有所不同，本研究聚焦探討其本質和特
性。過去的研究文獻已顯示SL與語言習得及閱讀能力有關，但大多數研究僅使用同
一種SL 測驗派典，主要評估個體對視覺或聽覺刺激中時間規律性的敏感度，這與掌
握語言中的語音與構詞面向較為相關。相較之下，過往研究對空間規律性的敏感度
——例如對意符文字（如中文）中筆畫在不同空間位置的排列一致性——卻仍少有
探討。
為填補這個研究方向的空缺，本博士論文針對時間位置與空間位置這兩種規
律性，採用平行的 SL 作業，並探討語言背景如何影響這些作業中所測量到的 SL 能
力。具體而言，本博士論文利用本人於碩士論文中所發展、創新的視覺位置 SL
(positional SL，PSL) 測驗，其中使用幾何圖形作為刺激材料，分別呈現時間與空
間位置的規律性，測量受試者對這兩種規律性的敏感度。本人過往的研究結果顯示，
無論是母語為拼音文字或意符文字的讀者，都能從兩種 PSL 測驗中學習到規律。不
過，在拼音文字讀者身上，只有空間 PSL 的表現能預測其早期中文識字能力。同時，
腦電波實驗也紀錄到意符文字讀者的大腦所呈現的事件相關電位 (event-related
potentials，ERPs)，對於違背時間規律性之刺激材料在 vMMN 與 N400 成分的反應。
然而，這兩個創新SL 測驗的信度與所測量之能力的特異性，以及在拼音文字讀者身
上所引發的電生理反應，尚未被系統性的檢驗。有鑑於此，本博士論文假設意符文
字讀者和拼音文字讀者對時間規律性有相近的敏感度，但前者較後者有更佳的空間
規律性敏感度；在腦電波資料中，本人也預期意符文字讀者和拼音文字讀者在時間
規律性PSL作業中有類似的表現，但在空間規律性PSL作業中的表現則有所不同。
i
此外，儘管過去研究指出人們能同時學習多種規律，但對於時間與空間位置
規律同時呈現在視覺、聽覺感官頻道的情況下，受試者的學習表現尚未被實驗檢視。
為了比較受試者在不同感官頻道的時間、空間規律性 PSL 作業中之表現異同，本博
士論文也使用和視覺PSL作業難度相若的聽覺PSL作業。來自這些作業的實驗結果可
以反映在透過視覺管道學會閱讀之前，聽覺處理歷程在語言發展早期所扮演的角色。
本人假設當時間規律性和空間規律性同時呈現時，受試者可以學會兩種規律，另外
也假設受試者對於在視覺管道中所展現的空間規律性和在聽覺管道中所展現的時間
規律性，會有更好的敏感度。
為了達到以上的目標，本博士論文設計了三組實驗。首先，透過比較拼音文
字與意符文字讀者在兩種 PSL 作業中的表現，確認了這兩種測驗的信度與特異性，
並發現意符文字讀者對空間位置規律的敏感度高於對時間規律的敏感度，顯示閱讀
經驗會影響 SL 表現。本論文的第二組實驗，透過 ERPs 的成分（如 vMMN、N400 與
P600）與跨嘗試間相關性分析（inter-trial coherence，ITC），確認了不同語言背
景的讀者在學習時間與空間位置規律時所涉及的神經處理機制有所不同。本論文的
第三組實驗，評估了當時間與空間的位置規律性，以交錯方式或同時呈現在視覺與
聽覺兩種感官頻道中，受試者在SL作業中的表現。這組實驗的結果顯示，無論感官
頻道為何，受試者普遍對空間位置規律較時間位置規律更為敏感。
總結而言，本博士論文透過行為實驗與神經電生理證據，確認了人類對時間
與空間位置規律的統計學習能力並不相同，並指出語言經驗（特別是所閱讀的文字
系統）對統計學習表現的關鍵影響。未來的研究可進一步探討不同類型規律敏感度
的細緻差異，以及語言背景在統計學習機制中所扮演的角色。;This study investigates the nature of statistical learning (SL), defined as the ability to
extract regularities from the environment, which is distinct from core cognitive abilities such
as IQ and working memory. Previous research has demonstrated that SL correlates with
language acquisition and reading proficiency. However, this relationship has been
predominantly examined using a single SL paradigm that measures sensitivity to temporal
contingencies within a stream of visual or auditory stimuli, paralleling aspects of language
such as phonology and morphology. In contrast, sensitivity to spatial contingencies, analogous
to the consistency of stroke patterns at different spatial positions within the characters of
logographic writing systems (e.g., Chinese), remains unexplored. This study aims to address
these gaps by differentiating between sensitivity to temporal and spatial regularities and
examining how language backgrounds influence SL.
To this end, I introduced two novel visual SL paradigms developed in my master′s
research: the temporal and spatial positional SL (PSL) tests. These paradigms involve
nonverbal geometric shapes that exhibit regularities in either temporal or spatial positions. My
earlier work revealed that both alphabetic and logographic readers could extract regularities
from both PSL formats, with no difference in both temporal and spatial PSL tests between
groups. Critically, among alphabetic readers, only spatial PSL performance predicted early
Chinese orthography acquisition. ERP recordings in logographic readers further demonstrated
visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) and N400 effects in response to violations of spatial and
temporal regularities, respectively. Despite these findings, the reliability and specificity of PSL
tests and their associated ERP correlates in alphabetic readers remain unexamined. In this
dissertation, it was hypothesized that sensitivity to spatial regularities would be more
pronounced in logographic than alphabetic readers, whereas sensitivity to temporal regularities
would be comparable between alphabetic and logographic readers. Similarly, it was also hypothesized that the EEG responses from both groups would be similar in the temporal PSL
test, while it would be distinct in the spatial PSL test.
Furthermore, while previous studies have shown that SL of multiple regularities
simultaneously is possible, participants′ performance on learning simultaneously presented
temporal and spatial regularities has yet to be tested. To compare participants’ PSL of temporal
and spatial regularities across different modalities, comparable tests in the auditory modality
were also included. Such findings may reflect the role of auditory processing in early language
development before learning to read via the visual modality. It was hypothesized that when
temporal and spatial regularities are presented simultaneously, participants would be able to
learn both regularities. In addition, participants would exhibit greater sensitivity to spatial and
temporal regularities in the visual and auditory modality, respectively.
To fulfill the aims outlined above, my Ph.D. research comprises three series of
experiments. First, I established the reliability and specificity of temporal and spatial PSL
abilities across alphabetic and logographic readers. The results further showed that reading
experience influences PSL performance, with logographic readers exhibiting greater
sensitivity to spatial regularities than alphabetic readers. Second, I identified the neural
correlates of temporal and spatial PSL across different reader groups through ERP components
(i.e., vMMN, N400, and P600) and inter-trial coherence (ITC) analyses. These findings
provide evidence for distinct cognitive processes underlying temporal and spatial PSL, which
were further modulated by language backgrounds. Third, I demonstrated participants′ temporal
and spatial PSL when to-be-learned regularities are presented in either interleaved or
concurrent formats across both visual and auditory modalities. Participants also showed greater
sensitivity to spatial than to temporal regularities in both modalities.
In summary, my Ph.D. research underscores the robustness of separate temporal and
spatial
PSL capabilities through validated experimental designs and distinct neurophysiological correlates. The findings also highlight the influence of reading experience
on SL performance. Future research should focus on sophisticated explorations of sensitivity
to distinct regularity types and the impact of language background within SL paradigms. |
