Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
J. Cock and B. Meier contributed equally to this work.
We tested the effects of introducing a secondary sequence into the serial reaction time task. Specifically, we examined the role of correlated streams of information and response relevance. In the first experiment, the order of stimulus locations was correlated with the order of key press responses in the conventional way. A symbol-identity sequence, of a different length, was also present but no manual responses were made to it, and it was not correlated with any other stream of information. In the second experiment, two concurrent streams of location-based stimuli were presented. Both were sequenced but only one sequence required responses. Importantly, the sequences were either correlated with one another or not (same vs. different lengths). In the third experiment, the same design was used but with one sequence visual and the other auditory. In all three experiments, participants became sensitive to the sequence that required responses, and resultant knowledge was largely explicit. They were also sensitive to the sequence that did not require responses but only when it was correlated with the sequence that did, and here resultant knowledge was implicit. The findings suggest that the presence of a secondary sequence can affect learning, but only when stimuli in that sequence are integrated, through correlation, with responses made to the primary sequence.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 603–623. CrossRef
Cock, J. J., Berry, D. C., & Buchner, A. (2002). Negative priming and sequence learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 27–48. CrossRef
Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1998). Implicit learning of loosely defined structures. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Learning (pp. 161–199). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stoecker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27, 470–482. CrossRef
Hsiao, A. T., & Reber, A. S. (2001). The dual-task SRT procedure: fine-tuning the timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 336–342. CrossRef
Jiménez, L., & Mendez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25, 236–259. CrossRef
Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). The role of stimulus-based and response-based spatial information in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 863–882. CrossRef
Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 22, 350–364. CrossRef
Meier, B., & Cock, J. (2012). The role of cues and stimulus valency in implicit task sequence learning: a task sequence is not enough. In A. L. Magnusson & D. J. Lindberg (Eds.). Psychology of Performance and Defeat (pp. 155–166). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher.
Nemeth, D., Hallgato, E., Janacsek, K., Sandor, T., & Londe, Z. (2009). Perceptual and motor factors of implicit skill learning. Neuro Report, 20, 1654–1658.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32. CrossRef
Rah, S. K.-Y., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000). Anotherwrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: it’s probably not dual task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 309–313. CrossRef
Rowland, L. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Attention modulates the learning of multiple contingencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 643–648. CrossRef
Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71. CrossRef
Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2010). Implicit sequence learning is represented by stimulus-response rules. Memory and Cognition, 38, 677–688. CrossRef
Shin, J. C., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Concurrent learning of temporal and spatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 445–457. CrossRef
Stoecker, C., Sebald, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 685–703.
Weiermann, B., Cock, J., & Meier, B. (2010). What matters in implicit task sequence learning: perceptual stimulus features, task-sets, or correlated streams of information? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 1492–1509. CrossRef
Weiermann, B., & Meier, B. (2012). Implicit task sequence learning with auditory stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 468–475. CrossRef
Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27, 595–613. CrossRef
- Correlation and response relevance in sequence learning