A Distraction Can Impair or Enhance Motor Performance

Humans have a prodigious capacity to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Being distracted while, for example, performing a complex motor skill adds complexity to a task and thus leads to a performance impairment. Yet, it may not be just the presence or absence of a distraction that affects motor performance. Instead, the characteristics of the distraction may play a critical role in affecting human motor performance. Here, we show that performance of a motor sequence can be substantially enhanced by simultaneously learning an independent color sequence. In contrast, performance of the same motor sequence was impaired by concurrently counting the number of red cues that were in the color sequence. The color and motor sequences had different lengths (10 vs 12 items), different numbers of elements (five vs four elements), and different temporal patterns (randomly intermittent vs continuous) and thus were independent of one another. These observations show that distracting information does not always impair motor performance, and so is not a sufficient explanation for the impaired performance. Instead, the influence that a distraction exerts upon performance is mediated by the type of processes engaged: when similar core processes are engaged, motor performance is enhanced, whereas when very different processes are engaged (i.e., counting and sequence performance), performance is impaired. Thus, these observations deepen our understanding of how a distraction, depending on its characteristics, can either impair or enhance performance and may offer novel approaches to optimizing human cognition.

[1]  A. Reber,et al.  Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It’s probably not dual task , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Daniel B. Willingham,et al.  On the development of procedural knowledge. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  V. Walsh,et al.  State-dependency in brain stimulation studies of perception and cognition , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Kae Nakamura,et al.  Central mechanisms of motor skill learning , 2002, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[5]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  Richard I. Ivry,et al.  Attention and Structure in Sequence Learning , 2004 .

[7]  S. Keele,et al.  The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. , 2003, Psychological review.

[8]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning , 1997 .

[10]  E. Robertson From Creation to Consolidation: A Novel Framework for Memory Processing , 2009, PLoS biology.

[11]  Simon A. Overduin,et al.  Simultaneous sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  Roberto Cabeza,et al.  When Learning and Remembering Compete: A Functional MRI Study , 2009, PLoS biology.

[13]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  Searching for patterns in random sequences. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[14]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  K Rayner,et al.  Stages of processing in word identification. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  M. Nissen,et al.  Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Abstract and Effector-Specific Representations of Motor Sequences Identified with PET , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  R. Stickgold,et al.  Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation , 2003, Nature.

[20]  E. Robertson The Serial Reaction Time Task: Implicit Motor Skill Learning? , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  B. Kopell,et al.  The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. , 1981, Science.

[22]  J. Gabrieli,et al.  Direct comparison of neural systems mediating conscious and unconscious skill learning. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Aspects of sensory guidance in sequence learning , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  Daniel B. Willingham,et al.  The Relation Between Implicit and Explicit Learning: Evidence for Parallel Development , 1999 .

[26]  Alvaro Pascual-Leone,et al.  Current concepts in procedural consolidation , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[27]  Brian N. Pasley,et al.  State-Dependent Variability of Neuronal Responses to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Visual Cortex , 2009, Neuron.

[28]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Consolidation in human motor memory , 1996, Nature.