Differences in incidental and intentional learning of sensorimotor sequences as revealed by event-related brain potentials

Rüsseler, Jascha; Hennighausen, Erwin; Münte, Thomas F.; Rösler, Frank

doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00145-3

Cited by 68 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be because explicit knowledge is tied to the stimuli but does not increase perceptual learning (Rüsseler and Rösler, 2000;Rüsseler et al, 2003). When explicit knowledge is removed from performance measures, as it was in the current study, an explicit awareness may have no effect on perceptual processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Using stationary letter cues, Rüsseler and Rösler (2000) found that implicit learners showed ERP components in response to motor sequence deviants only, whereas explicit learners showed ERP components when confronted with either motor or perceptual sequence deviants. This additional ERP effect for perceptual deviants occurred only when subjects had successfully acquired explicit sequence knowledge, and not when they were only searching for the pattern (Rüsseler et al, 2003). It was unclear from these experiments, however, whether explicit knowledge improved implicit perceptual learning, or if ERP effects simply reflected the effects of explicit knowledge without having altered implicit perceptual learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task

Song

Howard

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the serial reaction time task (SRTT), a sequence of visuo-spatial cues instructs subjects to perform a sequence of movements which follow a repeating pattern. Though motor responses are known to support implicit sequence learning in this task, the goal of the present experiments is to determine whether observation of the sequence of cues alone can also yield evidence of implicit sequence learning. This question has been difficult to answer because in previous research, performance improvements which appeared to be due to implicit perceptual sequence learning could also be due to spontaneous increases in explicit knowledge of the sequence. The present experiments use probabilistic sequences to prevent the spontaneous development of explicit awareness. They include a training phase, during which half of the subjects observe and the other half respond, followed by a transfer phase in which everyone responds. Results show that observation alone can support sequence learning, which translates at transfer into equivalent performance as that of a group who made motor responses during training. However, perceptual learning or its expression is sensitive to changes in target colors, and its expression is impaired by concurrent explicit search. Motor-response based learning is not affected by these manipulations. Thus, observation alone can support implicit sequence learning, even of higher order probabilistic sequences. However, perceptual learning can be prevented or concealed by variations of stimuli or task demands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task

Song

Howard

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect was observed in both implicitly trained participants and participants who were taught the grammatical rules prior to the task, but was larger in the explicit group. Similarly, using an SRT-paradigm, Rüsseler et al (2003a) found an enhanced N200 and P300 to deviant stimuli that disrupted a repeating sequence for intentional learners-who were informed of the presence of the sequencebut not for incidental learners. The same group of authors (Rüsseler et al 2003b) also compared ERPs between an intentional and incidental group of learners using a modified version of the SRT, in which a central target surrounded by flankers either followed a repeating sequence or was determined randomly.…”

Section: Reaction-time Taskmentioning

confidence: 90%

Functional differences between statistical learning with and without explicit training

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans are capable of rapidly extracting regularities from environmental input, a process known as statistical learning. This type of learning typically occurs automatically, through passive exposure to environmental input. The presumed function of statistical learning is to optimize processing, allowing the brain to more accurately predict and prepare for incoming input. In this study, we ask whether the function of statistical learning may be enhanced through supplementary explicit training, in which underlying regularities are explicitly taught rather than simply abstracted through exposure. Learners were randomly assigned either to an explicit group or an implicit group. All learners were exposed to a continuous stream of repeating nonsense words. Prior to this implicit training, learners in the explicit group received supplementary explicit training on the nonsense words. Statistical learning was assessed through a speeded reaction-time (RT) task, which measured the extent to which learners used acquired statistical knowledge to optimize online processing. Both RTs and brain potentials revealed significant differences in online processing as a function of training condition. RTs showed a crossover interaction; responses in the explicit group were faster to predictable targets and marginally slower to less predictable targets relative to responses in the implicit group. P300 potentials to predictable targets were larger in the explicit group than in the implicit group, suggesting greater recruitment of controlled, effortful processes. Taken together, these results suggest that information abstracted through passive exposure during statistical learning may be processed more automatically and with less effort than information that is acquired explicitly.

show abstract

“…We decided to label the initial blocks as incidental (as in Rüsseler, Hennighausen, Münte, & Rösler, 2003) rather than as implicit. Although mechanisms of sequence learning are likely to be predominantly implicit in these blocks, the term incidental may be more appropriate, since it does not convey any assumptions regarding whether learning was purely implicit or whether it may have been "contaminated" by explicit awareness.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Oculomotor evidence of sequence learning on the serial reaction time task

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual and oculomotor measures of sequence learning were examined on the serial reaction time (SRT) task. Participants were assigned into four groups differing on response modality (manual, oculomotor) and trial type (sequence, pseudorandom). The pattern of manual RTs replicated previous studies. Frequency of anticipatory eye movements followed similar patterns as RTs. Participants made many anticipations, even in pseudorandom blocks, and frequency of anticipations did not depend on presence of concurrent manual responses. Excluding participants with explicit awareness did not change results. Anticipations were negatively related to RTs in both incidental and intentional learning. Anticipations were positively related to sequence recall in intentional, but not incidental, learning. Results suggest that (1) anticipatory eye movements reflected sequence learning and (2) participants made overt and covert shifts of visuospatial attention to likely stimulus locations prior to stimulus onset, whether or not they made manual responses and whether or not there was a sequence.

show abstract

Differences in incidental and intentional learning of sensorimotor sequences as revealed by event-related brain potentials

Cited by 68 publications

References 45 publications

Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task

Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task

Functional differences between statistical learning with and without explicit training

Oculomotor evidence of sequence learning on the serial reaction time task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About