Phases of learning: How skill acquisition impacts cognitive processing

This fMRI study examines the changes in participants' information processing as they repeatedly solve the same mathematical problem. We show that the majority of practice-related speedup is produced by discrete changes in cognitive processing. Because the points at which these changes take place vary from problem to problem, and the underlying information processing steps vary in duration, the existence of such discrete changes can be hard to detect. Using two converging approaches, we establish the existence of three learning phases. When solving a problem in one of these learning phases, participants can go through three cognitive stages: Encoding, Solving, and Responding. Each cognitive stage is associated with a unique brain signature. Using a bottom-up approach combining multi-voxel pattern analysis and hidden semi-Markov modeling, we identify the duration of that stage on any particular trial from participants brain activation patterns. For our top-down approach we developed an ACT-R model of these cognitive stages and simulated how they change over the course of learning. The Solving stage of the first learning phase is long and involves a sequence of arithmetic computations. Participants transition to the second learning phase when they can retrieve the answer, thereby drastically reducing the duration of the Solving stage. With continued practice, participants then transition to the third learning phase when they recognize the problem as a single unit and produce the answer as an automatic response. The duration of this third learning phase is dominated by the Responding stage.

[1]  L. Reder,et al.  The Strategy-Specific Nature of Improvement: The Power Law Applies by Strategy Within Task , 1998 .

[2]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Why do children learn to say “Broke”? A model of learning the past tense without feedback , 2002, Cognition.

[3]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Skill Acquisition: Compilation of Weak-Method Problem Solutions. , 1987 .

[4]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Toward an explanation of the power law artifact: Insights from response surface analysis , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[6]  T. Curran Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[7]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[8]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[9]  S. Petersen,et al.  The effects of practice on the functional anatomy of task performance. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Christophe Phillips,et al.  Neural correlates of performance variability during motor sequence acquisition , 2012, NeuroImage.

[11]  John R. Anderson How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe , 2007 .

[12]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  The form of the forgetting curve and the fate of memories , 2011 .

[13]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[14]  G. Logan Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[15]  T. Rickard Bending the power law : A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills , 1997 .

[16]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning Problem-Solving Rules as Search Through a Hypothesis Space , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Ulman Lindenberger,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Review Structural Brain Plasticity in Adult Learning and Development , 2022 .

[18]  James B. Brewer,et al.  Retrieval Search and Strength Evoke Dissociable Brain Activity during Episodic Memory Recall , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  A. Kramer,et al.  Videogame training strategy-induced change in brain function during a complex visuomotor task , 2012, Behavioural Brain Research.

[21]  N. Jane Zbrodoff,et al.  Why is 9+7 harder than 2+3? Strength and interference as explanations of the problem-size effect , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  Specificity of learning through memory retrieval practice: The case of addition and subtraction , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Sher ry Folsom-Meek,et al.  Human Performance , 2020, Nature.

[25]  Timothy C Rickard,et al.  Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: an item-level test of candidate models. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  D. Rubin,et al.  The Precise Time Course of Retention , 1999 .

[27]  Yi-Yuan Tang,et al.  Training brain networks and states , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[29]  R Nathan Spreng,et al.  Functional Brain Changes Following Cognitive and Motor Skills Training , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[30]  G. Glover Deconvolution of Impulse Response in Event-Related BOLD fMRI1 , 1999, NeuroImage.

[31]  Frank J. Lee,et al.  Production Compilation: A Simple Mechanism to Model Complex Skill Acquisition , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Cognitive Psychology , 1992, Ageing and Society.

[33]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Discovering the Sequential Structure of Thought , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  R. Cabeza,et al.  Lateralization of Prefrontal Activity during Episodic Memory Retrieval: Evidence for the Production-Monitoring Hypothesis , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  Daniel Andrew Bajic,et al.  The temporal dynamics of strategy execution in cognitive skill learning , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  A. Kelly,et al.  Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  Caitlin Tenison,et al.  Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  An instance theory of attention and memory. , 2002, Psychological review.

[39]  Roy Stripling,et al.  Neural mechanisms for learning actions in context , 2007, Brain Research.

[40]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Extending problem-solving procedures through reflection , 2014, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  R. Poldrack Imaging Brain Plasticity: Conceptual and Methodological Issues— A Theoretical Review , 2000, NeuroImage.

[42]  G D Logan,et al.  The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[43]  W. Schneider,et al.  Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change: fMRI and meta-analytic evidence of a domain-general control network for learning. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[44]  Jörg Rieskamp,et al.  Testing adaptive toolbox models: a Bayesian hierarchical approach. , 2013, Psychological review.

[45]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  Acquisition of Cognitive Skill: Do We Already Have a Theory? , 2009 .

[46]  P. Reber The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: A review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging research , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  Hilde Haider,et al.  Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not: comment on Rickard (1997, 1999), Delaney et al. (1998), and Palmeri (1999). , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.