Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The present study tested the hypothesis that in motor sequences, the interval between successive movements is critical for the type of representation that develops. Participants practiced two 7-key sequences in the context of a discrete sequence production (DSP) task. The 0-RSI group practiced these sequences with response stimulus intervals (RSIs) of 0, which is typical for the DSP task, while the long-RSI group practiced the same sequences with unpredictable RSIs between 500 and 2000 ms. The ensuing test phase examined performance of these familiar and of unfamiliar sequences for both groups under both RSI regimes. The results support our hypothesis that the motor chunks that 0-RSI participants developed could not be used with long RSIs, whereas the long-RSI participants developed sequence representations that cannot be used with 0 RSIs. A new, computerized, sequence awareness task showed that long-RSI participants had limited sequence knowledge. The sequencing skill developed by long-RSI participants can, therefore, not have been based on explicit knowledge.
Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 603–623. CrossRef
Abrahamse, E. L., Ruitenberg, M. F. L., De Kleine, E., & Verwey, W. B. (2013). Control of automated behaviour: Insights from the discrete sequence Production task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(82), 1–16.
Arnold, A., Wing, A. M., & Rotshtein, P. (2017). Building a Lego wall: Sequential action selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(5), 847. PubMed
Barnhoorn, J. S., Döhring, F. R., Van Asseldonk, E. H. F., & Verwey, W. B. (2016). Similar representations of sequence knowledge in young and older adults: A study of effector independent transfer. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1125), 1–10.
Bower, G. H., & Winzenz, D. (1969). Group structure, coding, and memory for digit series. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Monograph, 80(2, p.t.2), 1–17. CrossRef
Brown, T. L., & Carr, T. H. (1989). Automaticity in skill acquisition: Mechanisms for reducing interference in concurrent performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(4), 686–700.
Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (2002). Implicit learning and concsciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective. In R. M. French & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Implicit learning and concsciousness. An empirical, philosophical and computational consensus in the making (pp. 1–40). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. CrossRef
Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(1), 189–202.
Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 343–350. CrossRef
Fendrich, D. W., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (1991). Long-term repetition effects for motoric and perceptual procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 137–151. PubMed
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. CrossRef
Frensch, P. A., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 13–18. CrossRef
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–865. PubMed
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neurophysiological theory. New York: Wiley.
Hikosaka, O., Nakahara, H., Rand, M. K., Sakai, K., Lu, X., Nakamura, K., et al. (1999). Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neuroscience, 22(10), 464–471. CrossRef
Hunt, R. H., & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 658–680. CrossRef
MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89(5), 483–506. CrossRef
Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 350–364. PubMed
Mueller, S. T., Seymour, T. L., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2003). Theoretical implications of articulatory duration, phonological similarity, and phonological complexity in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1353. PubMed
Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: an R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Journal of Statistical Software, 50(12), 1–23. CrossRef
Proteau, L. (1992). On the specificity of learning and the role of visual information for movement control. Advances in Psychology, 85, 67–103. CrossRef
R Core Team. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Ramkumar, P., Acuna, D. E., Berniker, M., Grafton, S. T., Turner, R. S., & Kording, K. P. (2016). Chunking as the result of an efficiency computation trade-off. Nature Communications, 7, 1–11.
Rosenbaum, D. A., Cohen, R. G., Dawson, A. M., Jax, S. A., Meulenbroek, R. G., van der Wel, R., et al. (2009). The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 629, 485–497. 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(5), 1011–1026. PubMed
Shanks, D. R., & John, St, M. F (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447. CrossRef
Shanks, D. R., & Perruchet, P. (2002). Dissociation between priming and recognition in the expression of sequential knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 362–367. CrossRef
Shea, C. H., Kovacs, A. J., & Panzer, S. (2011). The coding and inter-manual transfer of movement sequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–10. CrossRef
Shea, C. H., Panzer, S., & Kennedy, D. (2016). Effector transfer. In F. Loffing, N. Hagemann, B. Strauss & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Laterality in sports: theories and applications (pp. 180–204). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stadler, M. A. (1993). Implicit serial learning: Questions inspired by Hebb (1961). Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 819–827. CrossRef
Stanley, J., & Krakauer, J. W. (2013). Motor skill depends on knowledge of facts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–11. CrossRef
Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press. CrossRef
Verwey, W. B. (1996). Buffer loading and chunking in sequential keypressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 544–562.
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(6), 1693–1708. CrossRef
Verwey, W. B. (2003b). Processing modes and parallel processors in producing familiar keying sequences. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 67(2), 106–122. PubMed
Verwey, W. B., Abrahamse, E. L., & De Kleine, E. (2010). Cognitive processing in new and practiced discrete keying sequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(32), 1–13.
Verwey, W. B., Shea, C. H., & Wright, D. L. (2015). A cognitive framework for explaining serial processing and sequence execution strategies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 54–77. CrossRef
Viviani, P., & Laissard, G. (1996). Motor templates in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2), 417.
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 & Cognition, 25(4), 534–542. CrossRef
Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1047–1060. PubMed
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011). Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 739–751. PubMed
Yamaguchi, M., Crump, M. J., & Logan, G. D. (2012). Speed–accuracy trade-off in skilled typewriting: Decomposing the contributions of hierarchical control loops. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 678–699. PubMed
- Skill in discrete keying sequences is execution rate specific
Willem B. Verwey
Wouter J. Dronkers
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772