Oculomotor evidence of sequence learning on the serial reaction time task

Abstract

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.

The role of awareness in anticipation and recall performance in the Hebb repetition paradigm: implications for sequence learning

“…Curran and Keele showed stronger learning effects for more aware than for less aware participants; that is, reaction time decreased across repetitions more drastically for more aware participants. Such results have been replicated in several studies (e.g., Hoffman & Koch, 1997;Koch, 2007;Tubau & López-Moliner, 2003;Willingham et al, 1989), although a few studies have shown no difference between aware and unaware participants (see Marcus, Karatekin, & Markiewicz, 2006;Stadler, 1995).…”

“…In the present study, we examined how anticipation and recall performance are modulated by awareness with the spatial Hebb repetition paradigm used by Tremblay and Saint-Aubin (2009), who showed that on the repeated trials, participants moved their eyes to the location of the dot before it was presented. Anticipation increased over repetitions, as in the case in the SRT task (e.g., Marcus et al, 2006). However, Tremblay and Saint-Aubin did not measure the participants' level of awareness; Therefore, it is unknown whether anticipation differs between aware and unaware participants.…”

“…To circumvent the problem of defining anticipation as a fast response given after the stimulus onset, Marcus et al (2006) introduced eye movements for investigating anticipation in the SRT task. Participants were instructed to respond by moving their eyes to the stimuli as quickly as possible upon its presentation.…”

Predictability of what or where reduces brain activity, but a bottleneck occurs when both are predictable

“…With respect to location regularities, it has been shown that individuals are highly sensitive to them (Marcus, Karatekin, & Markiewicz, 2006;Walthew & Gilchrist, 2006). They respond faster to targets appearing in more predictable locations, either because these target locations have higher marginal frequencies (Geng & Behrmann, 2002Jones & Kaschak, 2012) or because they are linked to stronger transition probabilities (Remillard, 2003(Remillard, , 2009).…”

Right fronto-parietal dysfunction underlying spatial attention in bipolar disorder

“…A right parietal dysfunction in BD has been shown by a positron emission tomography study using a serial reaction time task, attributed to visuospatial function, in which participants are visually cued to press one of four buttons at a time (Berns et al, 2002). It has been shown that responses to this task involve manifestations of shifts of visuospatial attention to likely stimulus locations (Marcus et al, 2006). In Berns et al's study, BD patients exhibited significantly reduced activation in the right superior parietal cortex compared with healthy controls when finger sequence changed, which might have compromised visuospatial processing.…”