Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2020

10-11-2018 | Original Article

Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response

Auteurs: Cai S. Longman, Andrea Kiesel, Frederick Verbruggen

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Skilled performance is traditionally thought to develop via overt practice. Recent research has demonstrated that merely instructed stimulus–response (S–R) bindings can influence later performance and readily transfer across response modalities. In the present study, we extended this to include instructed category–response (C–R) associations. That is, we investigated whether merely instructed C–R bindings can trigger an unpracticed response (in a different modality) on perception of a novel (previously unseen) stimulus. In a learning-test design, participants had to classify stimuli by comparing them to perceptual category templates (Experiment 1) or semantic category descriptions (Experiment 2) presented prior to each block. During learning blocks, participants had to respond manually, respond vocally, or listen passively to the correct response being spoken. A manual response was always required at test. In test blocks, the categories could either be novel or repeated from the learning block, whereas half of the stimuli were always novel and half were always repeated from the learning block. Because stimulus and category repetitions were manipulated orthogonally, it was possible to directly compare the relative contribution of S–R and C–R associations to performance. In Experiment 1, test performance was enhanced by repeating the C–R bindings independently of the stimulus. In Experiment 2, there was also evidence of an S–R repetition benefit independent of the classification. Critically, instructed associations formed in one response modality were robust to changes in the required response, even when no overt response was required during training, indicating the need to update the traditional view of associative learning.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Note that this design does not explicitly require participants to covertly practice the response, nor were participants explicitly instructed to withhold a response. Although there is a broader literature on mental practice (for reviews see: Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Schuster et al., 2011), this tends to focus on situations in which the participant is explicitly instructed to use mental imagery to practice the tasks. The current experiments, like those of Pfeuffer et al. (2017, 2018), cannot rule out the possibility that participants used mental imagery to practice the tasks during learning blocks where a manual response was not required. However, our primary focus was whether the kind of learning generated in the absence of overt practice can transfer to an altogether novel context rather than the mechanism by which such associations might be formed.
 
2
Note that Cohen-Kdoshay and Meiran (2007, 2009) found a flanker compatibility effect on the first trials following some simple instructions that described the C–R bindings, suggesting that C–R associations can be formed via instructions alone. However, the specific stimuli used in the subsequent block were also displayed during the instructions phase, so their findings could also be explained in terms of S–R bindings (which was, indeed, the preferred explanation of the authors).
 
3
Note that Liefooghe et al. (2012) found evidence that S–R associations formed via instruction alone readily transferred between response modalities. However, some recent work from our own lab has found evidence to the contrary (Longman et al. 2018).
 
4
The capital letters (and lower-case letters) indicate whether the stimuli (s), categories (c), and/or responses (r) of the transfer phase were the same (S) or different (D) from those used in the training phase. Although the responses were always repeated between training and transfer in the current experiment, we have used the same condition coding format as Longman et al. (2018). This was partly for consistency, but also to emphasize the relevant associations learned in each critical condition (SsDcSr = S–R association independent of the classification; DsScSr = C–R association independent of the stimulus).
 
5
To confirm that replacing these participants did not materially affect the pattern of results, we performed the omnibus ANOVAs described below including all 72 participants. The pattern of results was almost identical—strong evidence of C–R transfer, little evidence of S–R transfer, and no significant interactions with the Modality factor.
 
6
Note that p > .025, so it just failed to reach significance according to the adjusted alpha. However, the Bayesian analysis (which does not require adjustment) provided very strong evidence that removal of the main effect of Modality from the model would impair its fit.
 
7
Note that the Modality-by-Category interaction just failed to reach significance according to the adjusted alpha. However, the Bayesian analysis (which does not require adjustment) provided only anecdotal evidence that removal of the interaction from the model would impair its fit. Inspection of Fig. 3 suggests that the accuracy advantage found when the categories were repeated between training and transfer was the smallest in the Enter condition, intermediate in the Speak condition, and largest in the Listen condition. However, these differences were apparently small and unstable.
 
8
Note that the target sample size was 60 from the outset in Experiment 2, so there was no need to adjust the alpha.
 
9
Note that participants could not perform a manual response during the Speak and Listen learning blocks, because they had to clench a fist.
 
10
We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRef Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRef
go back to reference Chein, J. M., & Schneider, W. (2012). The brain’s learning and control architecture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 78–84.CrossRef Chein, J. M., & Schneider, W. (2012). The brain’s learning and control architecture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 78–84.CrossRef
go back to reference Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154. Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154.
go back to reference Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 128–133.CrossRef Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 128–133.CrossRef
go back to reference Dennis, I., & Perfect, T. J. (2013). Do stimulus–action associations contribute to repetition priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 85–95.CrossRef Dennis, I., & Perfect, T. J. (2013). Do stimulus–action associations contribute to repetition priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 85–95.CrossRef
go back to reference Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227–231.CrossRef Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227–231.CrossRef
go back to reference Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481–492.CrossRef Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481–492.CrossRef
go back to reference Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus–response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 195–245). New York: Academic Press. Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus–response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 195–245). New York: Academic Press.
go back to reference Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 376–384.CrossRef Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 376–384.CrossRef
go back to reference Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(3), 757–779.CrossRef Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(3), 757–779.CrossRef
go back to reference Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus-response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1457–1471.CrossRef Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus-response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1457–1471.CrossRef
go back to reference Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: On the origins of response congruency effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71, 117–125.CrossRef Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: On the origins of response congruency effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71, 117–125.CrossRef
go back to reference Kramer, A. F., Strayer, D. L., & Buckley, J. (1990). Development and transfer of automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 505–522.CrossRef Kramer, A. F., Strayer, D. L., & Buckley, J. (1990). Development and transfer of automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 505–522.CrossRef
go back to reference Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 481–487.CrossRef Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 481–487.CrossRef
go back to reference Liefooghe, B., Wenke, D., & De Houwer, J. (2012). Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 38(5), 1325–1335.CrossRef Liefooghe, B., Wenke, D., & De Houwer, J. (2012). Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 38(5), 1325–1335.CrossRef
go back to reference Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.CrossRef Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.CrossRef
go back to reference Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRef Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRef
go back to reference Longman, C. S., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). How does the (re)presentation of instructions influence their implementation? Journal of Cognition(under review). Longman, C. S., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). How does the (re)presentation of instructions influence their implementation? Journal of Cognition(under review).
go back to reference Longman, C. S., Milton, F., Wills, A. J., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). Transfer of learned category–response associations is modulated by instruction. Acta Psychologica, 184, 144–167.CrossRef Longman, C. S., Milton, F., Wills, A. J., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). Transfer of learned category–response associations is modulated by instruction. Acta Psychologica, 184, 144–167.CrossRef
go back to reference Meiran, N., Cole, W. C., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: Intention-based reflexivity and working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(104), 1–12. Meiran, N., Cole, W. C., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: Intention-based reflexivity and working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(104), 1–12.
go back to reference Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Givon, E., Danieli, G., & Shahar, N. (2016). The role of working memory in rapid instructed task learning and intention-based reflexivity: An individual differences examination. Neuropsychologia, 90, 180–189.CrossRef Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Givon, E., Danieli, G., & Shahar, N. (2016). The role of working memory in rapid instructed task learning and intention-based reflexivity: An individual differences examination. Neuropsychologia, 90, 180–189.CrossRef
go back to reference Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015a). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 768–786.CrossRef Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015a). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 768–786.CrossRef
go back to reference Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015b). Reflexive activation of newly instructed stimulus–response rules: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials in no-go trials. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, I15(2), 365–373.CrossRef Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015b). Reflexive activation of newly instructed stimulus–response rules: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials in no-go trials. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, I15(2), 365373.CrossRef
go back to reference Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Jamil, T. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (Version 0.9.11-1). Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Jamil, T. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (Version 0.9.11-1).
go back to reference Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2012). Across-task priming revisited: Response and task conflicts disentangled using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 367–374.CrossRef Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2012). Across-task priming revisited: Response and task conflicts disentangled using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 367–374.CrossRef
go back to reference Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2013). Durability of classification and action learning: Differences revealed using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 226(3), 373–382.CrossRef Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2013). Durability of classification and action learning: Differences revealed using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 226(3), 373–382.CrossRef
go back to reference Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus-classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1744–1757.CrossRef Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus-classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1744–1757.CrossRef
go back to reference Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 17(1), 20–32.CrossRef Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 17(1), 20–32.CrossRef
go back to reference Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82, 744–758.CrossRef Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82, 744–758.CrossRef
go back to reference Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 328–347.CrossRef Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 328–347.CrossRef
go back to reference Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Multiple priming instances increase the impact of practice-based but not verbal code-based stimulus–response associations. Acta Psychologica, 184, 100–109.CrossRef Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Multiple priming instances increase the impact of practice-based but not verbal code-based stimulus–response associations. Acta Psychologica, 184, 100–109.CrossRef
go back to reference R Development Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Development Core Team. R Development Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Development Core Team.
go back to reference Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus–response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108.CrossRef Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus–response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108.CrossRef
go back to reference Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. F. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.CrossRef Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. F. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.CrossRef
go back to reference Schuster, C., Hilfiker, R., Amft, O., Scheidhauer, A., Andrews, B., Butler, J., Kischka, U., & Ettlin, T. (2011). Best practice for motor imagery: A systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines. BMC Medicine, 9, 75.CrossRef Schuster, C., Hilfiker, R., Amft, O., Scheidhauer, A., Andrews, B., Butler, J., Kischka, U., & Ettlin, T. (2011). Best practice for motor imagery: A systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines. BMC Medicine, 9, 75.CrossRef
go back to reference Strube, M. (2006). SNOOP: A program for demonstrating the consequences of premature and repeated null hypothesis testing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 24–27.CrossRef Strube, M. (2006). SNOOP: A program for demonstrating the consequences of premature and repeated null hypothesis testing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 24–27.CrossRef
go back to reference Verbruggen, F., McLaren, R., Pereg, M., & Meiran, N. (2018). Structure and implementation of novel task rules: A cross-sectional developmental study. Psychological Science, 1:0956797618755322 Verbruggen, F., McLaren, R., Pereg, M., & Meiran, N. (2018). Structure and implementation of novel task rules: A cross-sectional developmental study. Psychological Science, 1:0956797618755322
Metagegevens
Titel
Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response
Auteurs
Cai S. Longman
Andrea Kiesel
Frederick Verbruggen
Publicatiedatum
10-11-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1106-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Psychological Research 4/2020 Naar de uitgave