Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2013 | Original Article

Response-mode shifts during sequence learning of macaque monkeys

Auteurs: Dennis Rünger, F. Gregory Ashby, Nathalie Picard, Peter L. Strick

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2013

Abstract

Incidental sequence learning has been conceptualized as involving a shift from stimulus-based to plan-based performance (e.g., Tubauet et al. in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136:43–63, 2007). We analyzed the response time (RT) data of two macaque monkeys that were trained for thousands of trials on a sequential reaching task in a study by Matsuzaka et al. in Journal of Neurophysiology 97, 1819–1832 (2007). The animals learned to respond predictively to a repeating 3-element sequence. During a transitional period, RT distributions were bimodal, indicating that the animals alternated between two processing modes. An analysis of trial-to-trial mode shifting probabilities provided preliminary evidence for a strategic process.

vorige artikel On costs and benefits of n−2 repetitions in task switching: towards a behavioural marker of cognitive inhibition

volgende artikel Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition

Matsuzaka et al.'s (2007) primary motivation for training the monkeys on two sequences was to obtain evidence for sequence-specific neuronal activity in primary motor cortex after extensive practice.

Since the mixture probabilities are constrained to sum to 1, a model with N ex-Gaussian distributions has N − 1 free parameters for N mixture probabilities. Our primary goal was to determine the number of ex-Gaussian components in each bin and their locations. Therefore, we do not report estimates for the parameters σ and τ.

We excluded trials with RTs >600 ms for FN, and trials with RTs >500 ms for MA. These rare RTs were outside the critical RT range for the transition from stimulus-based to plan-based sequence production, and adversely affected model fits.

Amiez, C., Joseph, J. P., & Procyk, E. (2006). Reward encoding in the monkey anterior cingulate cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1040–1055. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj046.PubMedCrossRef

Beran, M. J., Smith, J. D., Redford, J. S., & Washburn, D. A. (2006). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) monitor uncertainty during numerosity judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 111–119. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.32.2.111.PubMedCrossRef

Bishop, C. (1995). Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Desmurget, M., & Turner, R. S. (2010). Motor sequences and the basal ganglia: kinematics, not habits. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7685–7690. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0163-10.2010.PubMedCrossRef

Haider, H., Eichler, A., & Lange, T. (2010). An old problem: how can we distinguish between conscious and unconscious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 658–672. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.021.

Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2009). Conflicts between expected and actually performed behavior lead to verbal report of incidentally acquired sequential knowledge. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 73, 817–834. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0199-6x.CrossRef

Haider, H., & Rose, M. (2007). How to investigate insight: a proposal. Methods (San Diego, Calif), 42, 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.004.CrossRef

Heathcote, A., Popiel, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: an example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340.CrossRef

Hikosaka, O., Nakamura, K., Sakai, K., & Nakahara, H. (2002). Central mechanisms of motor skill learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 217–222. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(02)00307-0.PubMedCrossRef

Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1997). Stimulus-response compatibility and sequential learning in the serial reaction time task. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 60, 87–97. doi:10.1007/BF00419682.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII (pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403

Koch, I. (2007). Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: evidence from stimulus-response compatibility. Human Movement Science, 26, 257–274. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.01.004.PubMedCrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492.CrossRef

Matsumoto, K., Suzuki, W., & Tanaka, K. (2003). Neuronal correlates of goal-based motor selection in the prefrontal cortex. Science, 301, 229–232. doi:10.1126/science.1084204.PubMedCrossRef

Matsuzaka, Y., Picard, N., & Strick, P. L. (2007). Skill representation in the primary motor cortex after long-term practice. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 1819–1832. doi:10.1152/jn.00784.2006.PubMedCrossRef

McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306, 503–507. doi:10.1126/science.1100907.PubMedCrossRef

Nissen, M., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8.CrossRef

Parzen, E. (1962). On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35, 1065–1076. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2237880.

Paul, E. J., Ashby, F. G., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Neural networks that monitor response uncertainty. Paper presented at the 2009 Meetings of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, March 21–24, San Francisco, CA.

Ratcliff, R., & Murdock, B. (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 83, 190–214. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.3.190.CrossRef

Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: a CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 288–311. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.288.CrossRef

Rickard, T. C. (1999). A CMPL alternative account of practice effects in numerosity judgment tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 532–542. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.532.CrossRef

Rose, M., Haider, H., & Büchel, C. (2010). The emergence of explicit memory during learning. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 2787–2797. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq025.PubMedCrossRef

Rünger, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2008). How incidental sequence learning creates reportable knowledge: the role of unexpected events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1011–1026. doi:10.1037/a0012942.PubMedCrossRef

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889.

Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435. doi:10.1037/h0028034.PubMedCrossRef

Stroop, R. J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651.CrossRef

Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tremblay, L., & Schultz, W. (1999). Relative reward preference in primate orbitofrontal cortex. Nature, 398, 704–708. doi:10.1038/19525.PubMedCrossRef

Tubau, E., Hommel, B., & López-Moliner, J. (2007). Modes of executive control in sequence learning: from stimulus-based to plan-based control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 43–63. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.43.CrossRef

Tubau, E., & López-Moliner, J. (2004). Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 68, 55–63. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0139-4.CrossRef

Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693–1708. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1693.CrossRef

Verwey, W. B. (2003). Processing modes and parallel processors in producing familiar keying sequences. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 67, 106–122. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0120-7.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934).

Titel: Response-mode shifts during sequence learning of macaque monkeys
Auteurs: Dennis Rünger
F. Gregory Ashby
Nathalie Picard
Peter L. Strick
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0402-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2013

Detecting perturbations in polyrhythms: effects of complexity and attentional strategies

The effects of an unexpected spider stimulus on skin conductance responses and eye movements: an inattentional blindness study

Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition

The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition

Processing numerosity, length and duration in a three-dimensional Stroop-like task: towards a gradient of processing automaticity?

Living on the edge: strategic and instructed slowing in the stop signal task