Taking patterns for chunks: is there any evidence of chunk learning in continuous serial reaction-time tasks?

When exposed to a regular sequence, people learn to exploit its predictable structure. There have been two major ways of thinking about learning under these conditions: either as the acquisition of general statistical information about the transition probabilities displayed by the sequence or as a process of memorizing and using separate chunks that can later become progressively composed with extended practice. Even though chunk learning has been adopted by some theories of skill acquisition as their main building block, the evidence for chunk formation is scarce in some areas, and is especially so in the continuous serial reaction-time (SRT) task, which has become a major research tool in the study of implicit learning. This article presents a reappraisal, replication and extension of an experiment that stands so far as one of the few alleged demonstrations of chunk learning in the SRT task (Koch and Hoffmann, Psychological Res., 63:22–35, 2000). It shows that the effects which were taken as evidence for chunk learning can indeed be obtained before any systematic training and thus surely reflect a preexistent tendency rather than a learned outcome. Further analyses of the effects after extended practice confirm that this tendency remains essentially unchanged over continuous training unlike what could be expected from a chunk-based account of sequence learning.

[1]  Jack van Honk,et al.  On the role of the SMA in the discrete sequence production task: a TMS study , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  I Koch,et al.  Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks , 2000, Psychological research.

[3]  Peder J. Johnson,et al.  Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. , 1994 .

[4]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  A subjective unit formation account of implicit learning , 1997 .

[5]  O. Hikosaka,et al.  Chunking during human visuomotor sequence learning , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  A. Vinter,et al.  PARSER: A Model for Word Segmentation , 1998 .

[7]  A. Vinter,et al.  The self-organizing consciousness. , 2002, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[8]  M. A. Stadler,et al.  Role of attention in implicit learning. , 1995 .

[9]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Chunking in Task Sequences Modulates Task Inhibition , 2006, Psychological science.

[10]  Michael A. Stadler,et al.  Implicit serial learning: Questions inspired by Hebb (1961) , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[11]  William B Verwey,et al.  Evidence for Lasting Sequence Segmentation in the Discrete Sequence-Production Task , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[12]  P. Perruchet,et al.  Implicit learning and statistical learning: one phenomenon, two approaches , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  P. Frensch,et al.  Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. , 1994 .

[14]  D. Berry How implicit is implicit learning , 1997 .

[15]  Darryl W. Schneider,et al.  Task-set inhibition in chunked task sequences , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[17]  Luis Jiménez,et al.  Qualitative differences between implicit and explicit sequence learning. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning Artificial Grammars With Competitive Chunking , 1990 .

[19]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Statistical approaches to language acquisition and the self-organizing consciousness: a reversal of perspective , 2005, Psychological research.

[20]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Learning to Segment Speech Using Multiple Cues: A Connectionist Model , 1998 .

[21]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Mechanisms of Implicit Learning: Connectionist Models of Sequence Processing , 1993 .

[22]  J. Lupiáñez,et al.  The problem of reversals in assessing implicit sequence learning with serial reaction time tasks , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.