Control of automated behavior: insights from the discrete sequence production task

Abstract

Work with the discrete sequence production (DSP) task has provided a substantial literature on discrete sequencing skill over the last decades. The purpose of the current article is to provide a comprehensive overview of this literature and of the theoretical progress that it has prompted. We start with a description of the DSP task and the phenomena that are typically observed with it. Then we propose a cognitive model, the dual processor model (DPM), which explains performance of (skilled) discrete key-press sequences. Key features of this model are the distinction between a cognitive processor and a motor system (i.e., motor buffer and motor processor), the interplay between these two processing systems, and the possibility to execute familiar sequences in two different execution modes. We further discuss how this model relates to several related sequence skill research paradigms and models, and we outline outstanding questions for future research throughout the paper. We conclude by sketching a tentative neural implementation of the DPM.

Skill in discrete keying sequences is execution rate specific

“…Research with the DSP task has provided ample support for the idea that motor sequencing skill is based on representations in memory that reduce and eventually even eliminate the reliance on element-specific stimuli (Abrahamse et al, 2013;Rhodes, Bullock, Verwey, Averbeck, & Page, 2004). This idea is based on findings like individual key presses in a familiar keying sequence becoming so fast that stimulusbased selection of individual responses is unlikely.…”

“…This idea is based on findings like individual key presses in a familiar keying sequence becoming so fast that stimulusbased selection of individual responses is unlikely. Execution rate of such familiar sequences appears to decrease only little when element-specific stimuli are no longer displayed, while in contrast, execution rate decreases substantially if only a single element is being altered (Abrahamse et al, 2013;Verwey, 1999Verwey, , 2010. There is general consensus now that skilled motor behavior is based on a practice-, task-, and age-dependent mixture of various sequence representations (Panzer, Gruetzmacher, Ellenbuerger, & Shea, 2014;Shea et al, 2016;Verwey, Shea, & Wright, 2015;Wiestler, Waters-Metenier, & Diedrichsen, 2014).…”

“…These include, for example, fixed forearm rotation sequences in the flexion-extension (FE) task, and fixed key pressing sequences in the serial reaction time (SRT) task and the discrete sequence production (DSP) task. In these tasks movement order is indicated by successively presented element-specific stimuli to which the participants initially react (for reviews of these three paradigms, see Abrahamse, Jiménez, Verwey, & Clegg, 2010; Abrahamse, Ruitenberg, De Kleine, & Verwey, 2013;Keele, Ivry, Mayr, Hazeltine, & Heuer, 2003;Shea, Kovacs, & Panzer, 2011;Shea, Panzer, & Kennedy, 2016).…”

Pushing typists back on the learning curve: Revealing chunking in skilled typewriting.

“…Automatization of component processes precedes the development of hierarchical control (e.g., Abrahamse et al, 2013;Bryan & Harter, 1899;LaBerge & Samuels, 1974;Rhodes et al, 2004;Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Automaticity develops by strengthening the associations that underlie the skill, and hierarchical processing emerges when the associations become strong enough to support performance without conscious control (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974;Logan, 1988;Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).…”

“…To implement multiple components in a rapid succession, skilled performance requires hierarchically organized control processes (Lashley, 1951). Although the notion of hierarchical control has appeared in psychological literature many times (e.g., Abrahamse, Ruitenberg, de Kleine, & Verwey, 2013;Bryan & Harter, 1899;Cooper & Shallice, 2000;Leonard & Newell, 1964;MacKay, 1982;Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960;Rhodes, Bullock, Verwey, Averbeck, & Page, 2004;Verwey, 2001), it remains controversial (e.g., Botvinick & Plaut, 2004;Cooper & Shallice, 2006;Elman, 1990). Studies of typewriting are particularly suited to address the hierarchical nature of skilled performance (Fendrick, 1937;Logan & Crump, 2011;Salthouse, 1986;Shaffer, 1975a;Yamaguchi, Crump, & Logan, 2013).…”