Well past midnight: Calling time on implicit invariant learning?

Newell, Ben R.; Bright, Jim

doi:10.1080/09541440143000023

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, no such correlation was observed when participants were instructed to memorize training sequences, suggesting that learning had been implicit. Newell and Bright (2002) reported similar results in an implicit invariant learning task. Kelly, Burton, Kato, and Akamatsu (2001) demonstrated that these effects extend beyond laboratory tasks to memory for real-world regularities, such as coins and stamps.…”

supporting

confidence: 70%

Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition

Tunney

Shanks

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 70%

Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition

Tunney

Shanks

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, if learning were bound to more peripheral processes, such learning would consist of learning of stimulus surface features or a sequence of motor responses (e.g. Newell & Bright, 2002;Perruchet & Pacteau, 1990;Seger, 1998). Subjects in this study were shown to learn auditory sequences of voices or colour names when these were relevant for motor responses, but they were unable to learn the same sequences without such motor responses tied to the sequence exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Auditory sequence learning: differential sensitivity to task relevant and task irrelevant sequences

Riedel

Burton

2005

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a serial reaction time task, this study examines whether learning of auditory sequences is possible without a corresponding motor response, i.e., by listening alone. The dual sequence paradigm used by Mayr (in Journal of the Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and cognition 22:350-354, 1996, Experiment 1) was adapted to the auditory domain. Four different actors spoke the same four colour words. These were presented such that speaker identity followed one sequence, and the word spoken followed a different sequence. Subjects were asked to respond (with a key press) to one of these dimensions (identity or word), and ignore the other. Results showed learning for either type of stimulus, but only when it was responded to. No learning of either type of auditory sequence by listening alone was found. The results add evidence to visual implicit learning studies that have failed to find learning of event sequences when spatial or response selection was not an important factor in processing. The findings are discussed in the context of implicit learning as a general and fundamental cognitive process.

show abstract

“…In the final experiment we turn to the question of what role repeated digits might play in the invariant task. Although the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 indicate that cross-form transfer does not rely exclusively on subjects' use of the rejection strategy, Stadler et al (2000, Experiment 3), Wright and Burton (1995), and Newell and Bright (2002) have all clearly demonstrated that when subjects are able to use the rejection strategy their selections are consonant with rejection strategy predictions. Independent of the presence or absence of the invariant 3, subjects tend to reject the strings containing repeated digits.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Evidence against hyperspecificity in implicit invariant learning

Newell

Bright

2002

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments examined the claim that cross-format transfer in invariant learning is reliant solely on the presence of repetition structure in study and test strings (Stadler, Warren, Lesch, 2000). Experiments 1, 2, and 3 used strings with no repetitions and found significant cross-format transfer in combination with a non-significant transfer decrement - no significant difference between same- and changed-format conditions. Further investigation of the basis of the role of repetition structure revealed an emphasis on the perceptual salience of test stimuli (Experiment 4). Our results contrast with those of Stadler et al. and suggest that under the conditions we employed invariant learning is not highly sensitive to changes in the perceptual characteristics of stimuli and therefore is inaccurately described as hyper specific. We suggest that the term hyper specific be reserved for cases in which minor format changes result in significant performance impairments - for example, typographical effects in implicit memory.

show abstract

Well past midnight: Calling time on implicit invariant learning?

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition

Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition

Auditory sequence learning: differential sensitivity to task relevant and task irrelevant sequences

Evidence against hyperspecificity in implicit invariant learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About