An Adapted Serial Reaction Time Task for Sequence Learning Measurements

Sengottuvel, Kuppuraj; Rao, Prema K. S.

doi:10.1007/s12646-013-0204-z

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reactive inhibition is the tendency for the response magnitude to drop after repeated exposure to same stimulus. It may be the case that our participants' responses were inhibited towards the end of day 1 and the rest has released the inhibition, therefore, allowing them to start responding at a dropped intercept level (Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013a). Present results, as a whole, are comparable to Gabay et al's and Hedenius et al's (Gabay et al, 2012;Hedenius et al, 2013 (Ferraro et al, 1993;Knopman & Nissen, 1991).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Initial and Later Procedural Learning Rates of Implicit Sequences in Good and Poor Readers of English

Sengottuvel¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with developmental disorders of reading are argued to have procedural learning deficits, such as incompetency to learn sequences. However, the evidence is weak. Learning in procedural system undergoes at least two well-known phases, initial acquisition and later offline consolidation. And, offline sequence learning is less studied in children with reading difficulties. In the present study, we present data on initial and later learning rates of implicit sequences in a group of children with (n=22) and without (n=22) reading difficulties in English whose native language is Kannada, a structurally distinct language to English. Our population is unique and were never studied on their procedural learning. They are unique in the sense that they receive extensive literacy exposure in English (which is their L2) from very early age, however, their oral fluency in L2 and text exposure in L1 are limited. We ran an implicit serial reaction time task to test their learning rates of 10- item visuo-spatial sequences on both initial and later sessions (> 24 & < 48 hours). Findings showed that poor readers showed slower learning rates only on later learning phase, where as their learning rate on initial learning phase was comparable to good readers. Further, learning slopes did not predict literacy scores in either of the groups. The importance of examining the learning processes holistically in children with reading difficulties and the findings’ potential contribution to informing the theories arguing procedural learning deficits are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Initial and Later Procedural Learning Rates of Implicit Sequences in Good and Poor Readers of English

Sengottuvel¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RT for each trial was measured as the time gap in milliseconds between stimulus appearance and a press of the correct button. Thus, we did not measure accuracy, but rather had a single measure of RT reflecting both speed and accuracy, because when errors were made, they led to delayed RTs on that trial (see Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013a for similar design). Prior to the actual task, participants were given a practice set (about 25 trials) to familiarize them with the task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the random blocks (100 trials in each), the stimulus appeared randomly on any of the four locations. There was, therefore, no scope for sequence learning, although RT could get faster due to general motor learning (Deroost & Soetens, 2006) (see Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013a for original version of the task). On the sequence phases, stimulus locations followed a predetermined 12-item first-order sequence, namely ‘421323413412’, in which all the locations have equal probability of occurrence (.25).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Willingham, Nissen, & Bullemer, 1989). The ISL was taken as the index of procedural sequence learning in the SRT task (Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the average RTs for pattern blocks are faster than for random blocks, providing evidence of implicit sequence learning. An index of sequence learning (ISL), reflecting the RT difference between random and repeated blocks, can be used as a measure of procedural memory (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 1999; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987; Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013a). Studies examining procedural memory using this method showed poorer motor sequence learning in children with SLI compared to their TD peers (Conti-Ramsden, Ullman, & Lum, 2015; Desmottes, Meulemans, & Maillart, 2016; Gabriel et al., 2013; Lum, Gelgic, & Conti-Ramsden, 2010; Lum et al., 2012; Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Declarative capacity does not trade-off with procedural capacity in children with specific language impairment

Sengottuvel

Rao²,

Bishop

2016

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims The procedural deficit hypothesis attributes the language phenotype in children with specific language impairment to an impaired procedural and relatively intact declarative memory system. The declarative compensatory hypothesis is an extension of the procedural deficit hypothesis which claims that the declarative system in specific language impairment compensates for the procedural deficit. The present study’s aim was to examine the claims of the procedural deficit hypothesis and declarative compensatory hypothesis by examining these memory systems and relation between them in specific language impairment. Methods Participants were children aged 8–13 years, 30 with specific language impairment and 30 typically developing controls, who spoke Kannada (an agglutinating language of the Dravidian family). Procedural learning was assessed using a serial reaction time task. Declarative memory was assessed using two non-verbal tasks that differed at the level of encoding and retrieval: a recognition memory task after incidental encoding using real and novel object images and a recall task after intentional encoding using visual paired associates. Retrieval was examined after short (10 min) and long (60 min) delays after encoding on both declarative tasks. Results Findings confirmed that children with specific language impairment (SLI) have impaired procedural memory on a non-verbal serial reaction time task. On recognition memory task after incidental encoding though children with specific language impairment encoded less well, they recognized items as well as typically developing controls. Both the groups retrieved more at short compared to long intervals and retrieved real (verbalizable) objects better than novel objects. On visual paired associates (recall task with intentional encoding) children with specific language impairment retrieved less than typically developing children (even after controlling for non-verbal ability and age). Furthermore, across retrieval types of declarative tasks, although children with specific language impairment did less well than typically developing, their pattern of performance was comparable to typically developing children. Finally, the correlation between memory systems did not support a trade-off between memory systems in children with SLI as predicted by the compensatory wing of procedural deficit hypothesis. Conclusions The findings supported the major claim of the procedural deficit hypothesis – a procedural learning deficit in specific language impairment and an intact declarative system, however, only if measured on task that was designed to be undemanding. Furthermore, there was no evidence for a trade-off between these systems. Implications and future directions Some interventions with specific language impairment use explicit teaching of grammar, an approach that uses the declarative rather than the procedural system. Our findings cast doubt on whether this is likely to be the most effective strategy.

show abstract

Limited Evidence of an Association Between Language, Literacy, and Procedural Learning in Typical and Atypical Development: A Meta‐Analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to extract patterns from sensory input across time and space is thought to underlie the development and acquisition of language and literacy skills, particularly the subdomains marked by the learning of probabilistic knowledge. Thus, impairments in procedural learning are hypothesized to underlie neurodevelopmental disorders, such as dyslexia and developmental language disorder. In the present meta‐analysis, comprising 2396 participants from 39 independent studies, the continuous relationship between language, literacy, and procedural learning on the Serial Reaction Time task (SRTT) was assessed across children and adults with typical development (TD), dyslexia, and Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Despite a significant, but very small, relationship between procedural learning and overall language and literacy measures, this pattern was not observed at the group‐level when examining TD, dyslexic, and DLD groups separately. Based on the procedural/declarative model, a positive relationship was expected between procedural learning and language and literacy measures for the typically developing group; however, no such relationship was observed. This was also the case for the disordered groups (ps > .05). Also counter to expectations, the magnitude of the relationship between procedural learning and grammar and phonology did not differ between TD and DLD (ps > .05), nor between the TD and dyslexic group on reading, spelling, and phonology (ps > .05). While lending little support to the procedural/declarative model, we consider that these results may be the consequence of poor psychometric properties of the SRTT as a measure of procedural learning.

show abstract

An Adapted Serial Reaction Time Task for Sequence Learning Measurements

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Initial and Later Procedural Learning Rates of Implicit Sequences in Good and Poor Readers of English

Initial and Later Procedural Learning Rates of Implicit Sequences in Good and Poor Readers of English

Declarative capacity does not trade-off with procedural capacity in children with specific language impairment

Limited Evidence of an Association Between Language, Literacy, and Procedural Learning in Typical and Atypical Development: A Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About