Implicit Learning of an Invariant: Just Say No

Following exposure to 30 four-digit numbers containing an invariant “3”, subjects are found falsely to recognize novel four-digit numbers containing this invariant (positives) in preference to novel numbers that do not contain the invariant (negatives). Despite this false recognition, they are generally unable to report the rule relating test positives to the positives seen during the learning phase. This finding has been taken to show implicit learning of a rule. Two experiments are reported here which show that it is not necessary to learn this rule in order to perform at above-chance levels on this test. Most of the effect can be explained in terms of the rejection of particularly distinctive test items that are more prevalent in the test negatives. This rejection appears to be mediated by knowledge that is potentially explicit as opposed to implicit, and we present tentative evidence that it is rule-based as opposed to analogic.

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

[2]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect , 1989 .

[3]  Peter McGeorge,et al.  The effects of concurrent verbalization on performance in a dynamic systems task , 1989 .

[4]  M. Nissen,et al.  Procedural learning is impaired in Huntington's disease: Evidence from the serial reaction time task , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic Grammar Learning : Implicit Rule Abstraction or Explicit Fragmentary Knowledge ? Pierre Perruchet and Chantal Pacteau , 1990 .

[6]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control , 1987 .

[7]  P McGeorge.  Implicit learning and human memory : theoretical and practical issues. , 1990 .

[8]  Arthur S. Reber,et al.  Analogic and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation , 1978, Cognition.

[9]  A. Reber.  Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. , 1969 .

[10]  Arthur S. Reber,et al.  Syntactical learning and judgment, still unconscious and still abstract: Comment on Dulany, Carlson, and Dewey , 1985 .

[11]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[12]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  New strings for Old: The Role of Similarity Processing in an Incidental Learning Task , 1994 .

[13]  D. Broadbent,et al.  On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable Knowledge , 1984 .

[14]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Two modes of learning for interactive tasks , 1988, Cognition.

[15]  Jim E. H. Bright,et al.  Past Midnight: Semantic Processing in an Implicit Learning Task , 1994 .

[16]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). , 1991 .

[17]  Peter McGeorge,et al.  Semantic Processing in an Incidental Learning Task , 1990 .

[18]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[19]  Richard A. Carlson,et al.  On consciousness in syntactic learning and judgment: A reply to Reber, Allen, and Regan , 1985 .