Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge

Abstract

In several sequence learning studies it has been suggested that response control shifts from the stimuli to some internal representation (i.e., motor program) through the learning process. The main questions addressed in this paper are whether this control shift is related to explicit knowledge and whether the formation of these internal representations depends on the stimulus attributes. In one experiment we compared the learning of a response sequence triggered by either spatial location or location symbol (left-right) by using a serial response task (SRT). Symbols were presented at either a centered or random location. The results showed that in the symbolic conditions the shift of response control correlated with the emergence of explicit knowledge. Only participants with complete explicit knowledge seemed to learn the sequence structure beyond probabilistic information (response time "RT" did not depend on the frequency of the response). Moreover, these participants were able to overcome, when needed, spatial interference (RT was the same for both spatially corresponding and non-corresponding trials). However, when spatial location was relevant, RT was always faster, especially for more frequent responses. These results suggest that the relevant stimulus dimension (location or symbol) seems to engage different sequence learning mechanisms.

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).…”

“…On the one hand, the finding that anticipation duration is modulated by awareness is in line with the results of studies using the SRT task. Indeed, several studies using the SRT task showed that participants aware of the repetition had stronger learning effects than did participants unaware of the repetition (Curran & Keele, 1993;Hoffman & Koch, 1997;Koch, 2007;Tubau & López-Moliner, 2003;Willingham et al, 1989).…”

Oculomotor and manual indexes of incidental and intentional spatial sequence learning during middle childhood and adolescence

“…Imaging studies in adults indicate that diVerent brain regions are involved in sequence learning depending on the nature of the stimuli (Robertson, Tormos, Maeda, & Pascual-Leone, 2001). Behavioral and lesion studies further suggest that separable mechanisms are involved in learning spatial versus nonspatial sequences (Koch & HoVmann, 2000;Mayr, 1996), and spatial versus stimulus-response regularities in spatial sequences (Helmuth et al, 2000), and that nonspatial stimulus sequences lead to greater explicit awareness than do spatial stimuli (Tubau & Lopez-Moliner, 2004).…”

Oculomotor evidence of sequence learning on the serial reaction time task

“…(pp. 1231-1232) In discussions of eye movements on the SRT task, eye movements are often referred to as responses (e.g., Mayr, 1996;Tubau & López-Moliner, 2004). The present results challenge this view.…”