Assumptions of the process-dissociation procedure are violated in implicit sequence learning.

Abstract

In implicit sequence learning, a process-dissociation (PD) approach has been proposed to dissociate implicit and explicit learning processes. Applied to the popular generation task, participants perform two different task versions: instructions require generating the transitions that form the learned sequence; instructions require generating transitions other than those of the learned sequence. Whereas accurate performance under inclusion may be based on either implicit or explicit knowledge, avoiding to generate learned transitions requires controllable explicit sequence knowledge. The PD approach yields separate estimates of explicit and implicit knowledge that are derived from the same task; it therefore avoids many problems of previous measurement approaches. However, the PD approach rests on the critical assumption that the implicit and explicit processes are invariant across inclusion and exclusion conditions. We tested whether the invariance assumptions hold for the PD generation task. Across three studies using first-order as well as second-order regularities, invariance of the controlled process was found to be violated. In particular, despite extensive amounts of practice, explicit knowledge was not exhaustively expressed in the exclusion condition. We discuss the implications of these findings for the use of process-dissociation in assessing implicit knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record

Methods matter: Your measures of explicit and implicit processes in visuomotor adaptation affect your results

“…When we focus on quantifying subjective experience, all measures will face interpretational complications. As such, it has been previously suggested in memory research and sequence learning that subjects may fail to perform exclusion and inclusion reliably (Dodson & Johnson, 1996;Graf & Komatsu, 1994)either as a result of not understanding the instructions or because of the complexity of the instructions-or they may use different strategies for exclusion and inclusion leading to distorted estimates of explicit and implicit processes (Barth, Stahl, & Haider, 2019). Failure to exclude and/or include may then lead to biased estimates of the AI.…”

A non-verbal Process Dissociation Procedure to disentangle explicit from implicit sequence learning

“…It may provide a relevant alternative to existing PDP generation tasks. Inded, addressing the pitfalls in PDP methodology has continuously received considerable attention (Barth et al, 2019;Fu et al, 2018;Hirshman, 2004;Norman, 2015;Norman et al, 2007;Pasquali et al, 2019;Stahl et al, 2015). The need for refining the PDP task is underscored by its relevance to addressing major theoretical questions in the field.…”

Differential effects of bilateral hippocampal CA3 damage on the implicit learning and recognition of complex event sequences

“…It has been suggested that introducing a probabilistic component to an event sequence can minimize the level of awareness associated with the newly acquired knowledge (Rosenthal et al, 2009 ; Vandenberghe et al, 2006 ). However, the empirical foundation on which to base a lack of conscious awareness remains an open question (Barth et al, 2019 ; Cleeremans & Jimenez, 1998 ; Destrebecqz & Cleeremans, 2001 ; Hannula et al, 2023 ; Rosenthal & Soto, 2016 , 2016 ; Rosenthal et al, 2009 , 2013 ; Shanks & John, 1994 ; Shanks & Johnstone, 1999 ; Soto et al, 2019 ; Vadillo et al, 2016 , 2022 ). Thus, when learning visible event sequences, we restrict the term implicit so that it refers to learning regularities under conditions where a participant is not oriented to the presence of the embedded regularities.…”