Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2008 | Original Article

The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal learning

Auteur: Jacqueline C. Shin

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2008

Abstract

How does learning the timing of actions influence our ability to learn the order of actions? A sequence of responses cued by spatial stimuli was learned in a serial reaction time task where the response-to-stimulus intervals (RSIs) were random, constant, or followed a fixed sequence. In this final sequenced-RSI condition, the response and RSI sequences were consistently matched in phase and could be integrated into a common sequence representation. The main result was that the response sequence was learned to a similar degree in all RSI training conditions, indicating that neither the predictability of RSIs nor the integration of the phase-matched response and timing sequences benefited learning of the response sequence. Nevertheless, temporal learning and integration speeded up performance without strengthening the representation of response order.

vorige artikel The Red Herring technique: a methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics

volgende artikel Taking patterns for chunks: is there any evidence of chunk learning in continuous serial reaction-time tasks?

The data for two participants in the constant-RSI training condition were excluded from further analysis, because the percentage of key-presses extending into the following trials was greater than three standard deviations above the mean (1.5%) (>2%) and unusually high during some of the probe blocks (up to 7.3% in one participant and up to 27.3% in the other). The proportion correct was on average 0.950 (SD = 0.028). Data from three more participants were excluded due to mean proportion correct values that were less than three standard deviations below the mean (0.89)—one participant each from the constant-RSI training condition, the sequenced-R training condition, and the sequenced-C training condition.

Recently, it has been shown by various authors that sequences with reversals, or trills, such as “1-2-1”, elicit cognitive processes that serve to underestimate sequence learning when the proportion of reversals differ in sequenced versus random blocks. In the current study, the pattern of results was virtually identical regardless of whether trials that contained reversals in the response sequence (e.g., the second “1” in “1-2-1”) were included in the analysis or not. Therefore, the results from data inclusive of reversals are reported in this paper.

Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Domains of recollection. Psychological Review, 89, 708–729.CrossRef

Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In: C. Izawa (Eds) Current issues in cognitive processes: the Tulane Floweree symposium on cognition, (pp. 313–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Buchner, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2001). Simultaneous learning of different regularities in sequence learning tasks: limits and characteristics. Psychological Research, 65, 71–80.PubMedCrossRef

Eich E. (1985). Context, memory, and integrated item/context imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 11, 764–770.CrossRef

Geiselman, R. E., & Bjork, R. A. (1980). Primary versus secondary rehearsal in imagined voices: differential effects on recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 188–205.PubMedCrossRef

Geiselman, R. E., & Glenny, J. (1977). Effects of imagining speakers’ voices on the retention of words presented visually. Memory & Cognition, 5, 499–504.

Gentner, D. R. (1987). Timing of skilled motor performance: tests of the proportional duration model. Psychological Review, 94, 255–276.CrossRef

Heuer, H. (1988a). Adjustment and readjustment of the relative timing of a motor pattern. Psychological Research, 50, 83–93.PubMedCrossRef

Heuer, H. (1988b). Testing the invariance of relative timing: comment on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review, 95, 552–557.PubMedCrossRef

Heuer, H. (1991). Invariant relative timing in motor-program theory. In J. Fagard, P. H. Wolff (Eds.), The development of timing control and temporal organization in coordinated action: invariant timing, rhythms and coordination (pp. 37–68). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRef

Jones, M. R., & Ralston, J. T. (1991). Some influences of accent structure on melody recognition. Memory & Cognition, 19, 8–20.

Jones, M. R., Summerell, L., & Marshburn, E. (1987). Recognizing melodies: a dynamic interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 89–121.

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

Lee, D. N., Young, D. S., Reddish, P. E., Lough, S., & Clayton, T. M. H. (1983). Visual timing in hitting an accelerating ball. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 333–346.

Murnane, K., & Phelps, M. P. (1993). A global activation approach to the effect of changes in environmental context on recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 882–894.CrossRef

Murnane, K., & Phelps, M. P. (1994). When does a different environmental context make a difference in recognition? A global activation model. Memory & Cognition, 22, 584–590.

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

Quesada, D. C., & Schmidt, R. A. (1970). A test of the Adams-Creamer decay hypothesis for the timing of motor responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 2, 273–283.

Rah, S. K.-Y., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000). Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: it’s probably not dual task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 309–313.

Rantanen, E., & Xu, X. (2001). Human performance in timing of discrete actions. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th annual meeting. St. Paul, MN.

Rosenbaum, D. A., & Patashnik, O. (1980). A mental clock-setting process revealed by reaction times. In G. E. Stelmach, & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 487–499). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRef

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.CrossRef

Schmidt, R. A. (1980). On the theoretical status of time in motor program representations. In G. E. Stelmach, & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRef

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

Shaffer, L. H. (1981). Performances of Chopin, Bach, and Bartok: studies in motor programming. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 326–376.CrossRef

Shaffer, L. H. (1982). Rhythm and timing in skill. Psychological Review, 89, 109–122.PubMedCrossRef

Shaffer, L. H. (1984). Timing in musical performance. In J. Gibbon, & L. Allen (Eds.), Timing and time perception (pp. 420–428). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Smith, S. M. (1986). Environmental context-dependent recognition memory using a short-term memory task for input. Memory & Cognition, 14, 347–354.

Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (1992). Environmental context-dependent eyewitness recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 125–139.CrossRef

Summers, J. J. (1975). The role of timing in motor program representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7, 229–241.

Summers, J. J. (1977). The relationship between the sequencing and timing components of a skill. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 49–59.

Terzuolo, C. A., & Viviani, P. (1980). Determinants and characteristics of motor patterns used for typing. Neuroscience, 5, 1085–1103.PubMedCrossRef

Viviani, P., & Terzuolo, C. (1980). Space-time invariance in learned motor skills. In G. E. Stelmach, & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 525–533). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRef

Willingham, D. B., Greenberg, A. R., & Thomas, R. C. (1997). Response-to-stimulus interval does not affect implicit motor sequence learning, but does affect performance. Memory and Cognition, 25, 534–542.

Titel: The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal learning
Auteur: Jacqueline C. Shin
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0115-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2008

Evidence for attentional processing in spatial localization

The Red Herring technique: a methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics

That’s what task sets are for: shielding against irrelevant information

Mixing costs and switch costs when switching stimulus dimensions in serial predictions

Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching

Context dependent learning in the serial RT task