Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2008 | Original Article

Effector-related sequence learning in a bimanual-bisequential serial reaction time task

Auteurs: Michael P. Berner, Joachim Hoffmann

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2008

Abstract

In a bimanual-bisequential version of the serial reaction time (SRT) task participants performed two uncorrelated key-press sequences simultaneously, one with fingers of the left hand and the other with fingers of the right hand. Participants responded to location-based imperative stimuli. When two such stimuli appeared in each trial, the results suggest independent learning of the two sequences and the occurrence of intermanual transfer. Following extended practice in Experiment 2, transfer of acquired sequence knowledge was not complete. Also in Experiment 2, when only one stimulus appeared in each trial specifying the responses for both hands so that there was no basis for separate stimulus–stimulus or separate response–effect learning, independent sequence learning was again evident, but there was no intermanual transfer at all. These findings suggest the existence of two mechanisms of sequence learning, one hand-related stimulus-based and the other motor-based, with only the former allowing for intermanual transfer.

vorige artikel Laterally focused attention modulates asymmetric coupling in rhythmic interlimb coordination

volgende artikel A single-element impact in global/local processing: the roles of element centrality and diagnosticity

We would like to thank Willem Verwey for pointing this out.

One reviewer correctly pointed out that the performance decrements in transfer blocks might not be due to a failure of transfer but rather to interference: first, for the transfer hand the formerly practiced sequence might interfere with the new transferred sequence; second, the transferred sequence might become suppressed because the hand which has practiced this sequence before now has to perform a random sequence. However, the interference account can hardly explain why in transfer blocks of Experiment 1 no interference at all is indicated. In particular, in Experiment 1 the error data suggested nearly complete transfer as the hands which performed the transferred sequence never produced error costs, whereas the hands which performed the random sequence always produced error costs. Therefore we consider the account in terms of transfer at least as plausible as the interference account.

We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for alerting us to this alternative account.

Bapi, R. S., Doya, K., & Harner, A. M. (2000). Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research, 132, 149–162.CrossRef

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 275–281.CrossRef

Cohen, A., Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.CrossRef

Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006). Perceptual or motor learning in SRT tasks with complex sequence structures. Psychological Research, 70, 88–102.PubMedCrossRef

Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 343–350.PubMed

Frensch, P. A., & Miner C. S. (1995). Zur Rolle des Arbeitsgedächtnisses beim impliziten Sequenzlernen (The role of working memory in implicit sequence learning). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 42, 545–575.

Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420–9428.PubMed

Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Motor sequence learning with the nondominant left hand. A PET functional imaging study. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 369–378.CrossRef

Hazeltine E. (2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action (Attention and Performance XIX, pp. 673–689). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hikosaka, O., Nakamura, K., Sakai, K., & Nakahara, H. (2002). Central mechanisms of motor skill learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 217–222.PubMedCrossRef

Hoffmann, J. (2001). Representation of serial order, cognitive psychology of. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 19, pp. 13171–13174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1997). Stimulus-response compatibility and sequential learning in the serial reaction time task. Psychological Research, 60, 87–97.CrossRef

Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1998). Implicit learning of loosely defined structures. In M. A. Stadler, & P. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 161–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hoffmann, J., Martin, C., & Schilling, A. (2003). Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions. Psychological Research, 67, 160–173.PubMedCrossRef

Hoffmann, J., & Sebald, A. (1996). Reiz- und Reaktionsmuster in seriellen Wahlreaktionen [Stimulus and response patterns in serial reaction time tasks]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 43, 40–68.PubMed

Hoffmann, J., & Sebald, A. (2005). When obvious covariations are not even learned implicitly. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 449–480.CrossRef

Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470–482.PubMedCrossRef

Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A., & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1029–1039.PubMedCrossRef

Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236–259.CrossRef

Keele, S. W., Ivry, R. B., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316–339.PubMedCrossRef

Keele, S. W., Jennings, P., Jones, S., Caulton, D., & Cohen, A. (1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17–30.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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Nattkemper, D., & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98–112.CrossRef

Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.CrossRef

Park, J.-H., & Shea, C. H. (2005). Sequence learning: Response structure and effector transfer. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 387–419.

Remillard, G. (2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 581–597.PubMedCrossRef

Rhodes, B. J., Bullock, D., Verwey, W. B., Averbeck, B. B., & Page, M. P. A. (2004). Learning and production of movement sequences: Behavioral, neurophysiological, and modelling perspectives. Human Movement Science, 23, 699–746.PubMedCrossRef

Riedel, B., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Auditory sequence learning: Differential sensitivity to task relevant and task irrelevant sequences. Psychological Research, 70, 337–344.PubMedCrossRef

Rüsseler, J., Münte, T. F., & Rösler, F. (2002). Influence of stimulus distance in implicit learning of spatial and nonspatial event sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 973–987.PubMedCrossRef

Rüsseler, J., & Rösler, F. (2000). Implicit and explicit learning of event sequences: Evidence for distinct coding of perceptual and motor representations. Acta Psychologica, 104, 45–67.PubMedCrossRef

Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71.CrossRef

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime, version 1.1. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

Stöcker, C., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking. Psychological Research, 68, 126–137.PubMedCrossRef

Stöcker, C., Sebald, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 586–703.

van der Graaf, F. H. C. E., de Jong, B. M., Maguire, R. P., Meiners, L. C., & Leenders, K. L. (2004). Cerebral activation related to skills practice in a double serial reaction time task: Striatal involvement in random-order sequence learning. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 120–131.CrossRef

Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2005). Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task. Psychological Research, 69, 242–251.PubMedCrossRef

Verwey, W. B., & Wright, D. L. (2004). Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task. Psychological Research, 68, 64–70.PubMedCrossRef

Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.

Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 962–978.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.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Effector-related sequence learning in a bimanual-bisequential serial reaction time task
Auteurs: Michael P. Berner
Joachim Hoffmann
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0097-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2008

A single-element impact in global/local processing: the roles of element centrality and diagnosticity

Action–effect anticipation in infant action control

The influence of trial-to-trial recalibration on sequential effects in cross-modality matching

Laterally focused attention modulates asymmetric coupling in rhythmic interlimb coordination

Response times seen as decompression times in Boolean concept use

Attentional awakening: gradual modulation of temporal attention in rapid serial visual presentation