Abstract
For nearly two decades, researchers have investigated spatial sequence learning in an attempt to identify what specifically is learned during sequential tasks (e.g., stimulus order, response order, etc.). Despite extensive research, controversy remains concerning the information-processing locus of this learning effect. There are three main theories concerning the nature of spatial sequence learning, corresponding to the perceptual, motor, or response selection (i.e., central mechanisms underlying the association between stimulus and response pairs) processes required for successful task performance. The present data investigate this controversy and support the theory that stimulus—response (S—R) rules are critical for sequence learning. The results from two experiments demonstrate that sequence learning is disrupted only when the S—R rules for the task are altered. When the S—R rules remain constant or involve only a minor transformation, significant sequence learning occurs. These data implicate spatial response selection as a likely mechanism mediating spatial sequential learning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bischoff-Grethe, A., Goedert, K. M., Willingham, D. T., & Grafton, S. T. (2004). Neural substrates of response-based sequence learning using fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 127–138. doi:10.1162/089892904322755610
Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 406–416. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01232-7
Clegg, B. A. (2005). Stimulus-specific sequence representation in serial reaction time tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1087–1101. doi:10.1080/02724980443000485
Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 275–281. doi:10.1016/ S1364-6613(98)01202-9
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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17
Cohen, N. J., & Eichenbaum, H. (1993). Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Curtis, C. E., & D’Esposito, M. (2003). Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 415–423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00197-9
Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006). The role of response selection in sequence learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 449–456. doi:10.1080/17470210500462684
Duncan, J. (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 567–584. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.567
Frensch, P. A., Wenke, D., & Runger, D. (1999). A secondary tonecounting task suppresses expression of knowledge in the serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 260–274. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.260
Goschke, T. (1998). Implicit learning of perceptual and motor sequences: Evidence for independent systems. In M. A. Stadler & P. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 401–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grafton, S. T., Salidis, J., & Willingham, D. B. (2001). Motor learning of compatible and incompatible visuomotor maps. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 217–231. doi:10.1162/089892901564270
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). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 59, 119–133. doi:10.1007/BF01792433
Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A., & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1029–1039. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1029
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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.316
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.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22–35. doi:10.1007/PL00008165
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.350
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
Olson, I. R., Rao, H., Moore, K. S., Wang, J., Detre, J. A., & Aguirre, G. K. (2006). Using perfusion fMRI to measure continuous changes in neural activity with learning. Brain & Cognition, 60, 262–271. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.11.010
Pashler, H. (1994). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 161–191. doi:10.1080/14640749408401148
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 20–32. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.20
Read, L. E., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and negative priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 41–48.
Reber, A. S., Allen, R., & Reber, P. J. (1999). Implicit versus explicit learning. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 475–514). Cambridge, MA: MIT 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.585
Remillard, G. (2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 581–597. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.581
Remillard, G. (2009). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning: A role for visuospatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 528–541. doi:10.1037/a0014646
Richard, M. V., Clegg, B. A., & Seger, C. A. (2009). Implicit motor sequence learning is not represented purely in response locations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1516–1522. doi:10.1080/17470210902732130
Rowe, J. B., Toni, I., Josephs, O., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Passingham, R. E. (2000). The prefrontal cortex: Response selection or maintenance within working memory? Science, 288, 1656–1660. doi:10.1126/science.288.5471.1656
Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71. doi:10.1007/BF00419680
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
Schumacher, E. H., Cole, M. W., & D’Esposito, M. (2007). Selection and maintenance of stimulus-response rules during preparation and performance of a spatial choice-reaction task. Brain Research, 1136, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.081
Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 270–290. doi:10.1037/ a0015378
Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2009). Neural evidence of a role for spatial response selection in the learning of spatial sequences. Brain Research, 1247, 114–125. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.09.097
Shanks, D. R., & Channon, S. (2002). Effects of a secondary task on /ldimplicit” sequence learning: Learning or performance? Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 66, 99–109. doi:10.1007/ s00426-001-0081-2
Stadler, M. A. (1989). On learning complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1061–1069. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1061
Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 674–685. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.674
Verwey, V. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2005). Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task. Psychological Research, 69, 242–251. doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0181-x
Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561–572.
Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1047–1060. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1047
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, & Cognition, 24, 962–978. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.962
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, & Cognition, 27, 595–613. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.595
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schwarb, H., H. Schumacher, E. Implicit sequence learning is represented by stimulus—response rules. Memory & Cognition 38, 677–688 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.677
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.677