Simultaneous learning of different regularities in sequence learning tasks: limits and characteristics

Abstract Two experiments are reported which were designed to investigate the generality and the power of the mechanisms underlying sequence learning. In both experiments, participants reacted to systematic sequences of tones. They were informed that there was a tone systematicity. Participants were not told that the interval between a response to a tone and the onset of the subsequent tone (response-signal interval, RSI) also varied according to a fixed regularity. Experiment 1 showed that the unattended RSIs were learned when they were uniquely related to the tone sequence, but not when the relation was ambiguous. Experiment 2 showed that, on the basis of the traditional reaction time performance measure, participants who learned the RSIs by attending to their systematicity could not be distinguished from those in an incidental learning condition in which the RSI systematicity was unattended. However, a model-based analysis of the processes contributing to judgements about the event sequences suggested that the two groups had acquired qualitatively different knowledge.

[1]  U. Mayr,et al.  Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  D L Schacter,et al.  Neurochemical dissociation of memory systems , 1987, Neurology.

[3]  A. Baddeley,et al.  The Psychology of Learning and Motivation , 1974 .

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

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

[6]  Axel Buchner,et al.  On the Role of Fragmentary Knowledge in a Sequence Learning Task , 1998 .

[7]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Interactive tasks and the implicit‐explicit distinction , 1988 .

[8]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .

[9]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[10]  D. Shanks,et al.  Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  A Multinomial Model to Assess Fluency and Recollection in a Sequence Learning Task , 1997 .

[12]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Implicit Learning , 1993 .

[13]  Daniel B. Willingham,et al.  Dissociation in a serial response time task using a recognition measure: comment on Perruchet and Amorim (1992) , 1993 .

[14]  D. Knopman,et al.  Unaware learning versus preserved learning in pharmacologic amnesia: similarities and differences. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Daniel B. Willingham,et al.  Explicit and implicit remembering: When is learning preserved in amnesia? , 1989, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  T. Curran,et al.  On tasks, knowledge, correlations, and dissociations: comment on Perruchet and Amorim (1992) , 1993 .

[17]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  An illusion of memory: false recognition influenced by unconscious perception , 1989 .

[18]  W. Batchelder,et al.  The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm , 1994 .

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

[20]  M. Amorim,et al.  Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: evidence against dissociation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .