Abstract
In the standard serial reaction time (SRT) experiment, subjects are required to respond rapidly to a structured sequence of visual targets. Evidence that subjects have acquired knowledge of the structure is obtained by modifying the structured nature of the sequence and noting whether reaction times increase. In the dual-task SRT experiment, a “secondary” tone-counting task is introduced, and the extent to which learning of the “primary” target sequence is compromised is noted. Here we present data that strongly imply that while the psychologists who designed this “dual-task” experiment may have viewed it this way, this may not be the best way to characterize it. The suggestion is that this “duality” is illusory and that we should probably be treating the tone-counting task as a potential source of additional patterns of covariation in a complex, multicomponent display and not as a “secondary,” attention-diverting factor.
Article PDF
References
Cleeremans, A. (1993).Mechanisms of implicit learning: Connectionist models of sequence processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cleeremans, A., &McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 235–253.
Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., &Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 17–30.
Curran, T., &Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 189–202.
Frensch, P. A., Lin, J., &Buchner, A. (1998). Learning versus behavioral expression of the learned: The effects of a secondary tonecounting task on implicit learning in the serial reaction time task.Psychological Research,61, 83–98.
Frensch, P. A., &Miner, C. S. (1994). Effects of presentation rate and individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning.Memory & Cognition,22, 95–110.
Frensch, P. A., Wenke, D., &Rünger, D. (1999). A secondary tonecounting task suppresses performance in the serial reaction task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 260–274.
Heuer, H., &Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning.Psychological Research,59, 176–186.
Hsiao, A. (1997, April).Implicit sequence learning depends on available residual attention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Hsiao, A., &Reber, A. S. (1998). The role of attention in implicit sequence learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.),Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 471–494). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jiménez, L., Mendez, C., &Cleeremans, A. (1996). Comparing direct and indirect measures of sequence learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 948–969.
Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 350–364.
Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., &Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychological Bulletin,117, 363–386.
Nissen, M. J., &Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures.Cognitive Psychology,19, 1–32.
Reber, A. S. (1993).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reed, J., &Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 585–594.
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is.American Psychologist,44, 151–160.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasky (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., &Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants.Science,274, 1926–1928.
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., &Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear.Psychological Science,8, 101–105.
Schmidtke, V., &Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning.Psychological Research,60, 53–71.
Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 819–827.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was partially supported by a PSC-CUNY grant. We thank the denizens of the Institute for Experimental Epistemology for their (almost invariably) helpful contributions: Shahid Babar, Raquel Domgaard, Noam Fischman, Leib Litman, David Scaffidi, and Diane Zizak.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rah, S.Ky., Reber, A.S. & Hsiao, A.T. Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It’s probably not dual task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7, 309–313 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212986
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212986