Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implicit sequence learning despite multitasking: the role of across-task predictability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One often replicated finding is that implicit sequence learning is hampered in dual-task situations. Thus, one crucial question has been whether implicit learning processes require attentional resources. Meanwhile, focusing exclusively on limited attentional resources might be considered as too unspecific. Overall, the focus lies now rather on the possibility that the impairment is due to interference coming along with (a) task integration (e.g., Schmidtke and Heuer in Psychol Res 60(1–2):53–71, 1997)—or with (b) parallel response selection (Schumacher and Schwarb in J Exp Psychol Gen 138(2):270–290, 2009). Yet, other explanations have also been put forward—and there is still no agreement. Our goal here is to contribute to this debate by testing several constraints that have been suggested in the literature within one single paradigm, originating by Schumacher and Schwarb (J Exp Psychol Gen 138(2):270–290, 2009). Therefore, we paired the same visual-manual serial reaction time task (SRTT; Nissen and Bullemer in Cogn Psychol 19(1):1–32, 1987) with different auditory-vocal tone-discrimination tasks across seven dual-task conditions. We manipulated (a) its relation to the SRTT and/or (b) the difficulty of response selection. The results suggest that task integration is indeed a crucial factor for implicit sequence learning: since the tone-task is a potential source of noisy patterns of covariation in a complex arrangement of task components, sequence learning is disrupted. In line with Rah, Reber, and Hsiao (Psychon Bull Rev 7(2):309–313, 2000), the usefulness (in terms of sequence learning) of task integration seems to depend on the predictive value of across-task stimulus and/or response events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Experiment 2 (30% responses condition), we expanded our standard error criterion and additionally replaced the data of participants who responded to the wrong tone in more than 15% of the respective trials. We did this because a rate of 15% of this special kind of error already increases the amount of dual-task trials by one-third.

  2. In the SRT task (9 blocks), 0.9/0.9/5.9% of the trials were classified as RT outliers and 2.1/1.7/7.2% of the trials were excluded due to errors in the spatial/arbitrary/single-task condition, respectively. In the tone-discrimination task (6 blocks), 0.1/0.1% of the trials were classified as RT outliers. In 14.9/17.5% of the trials the voice-key data in the spatial/arbitrary condition, respectively did not match the required response. As some trials also fulfilled multiple exclusion criteria, overall 12.2/13.7/8.0% of all trials were excluded.

  3. In Experiment 1, 9 participants reported full/partial SRTT sequence knowledge. Full sequence knowledge was reported by 1 participant in the spatial condition and 3 participants in the single-task condition. Partial sequence knowledge was reported by 4 participants in the spatial condition and 1 participant in the arbitrary condition. When these 9 participants were excluded from the test blocks analysis, the pattern of results (RTs and error rates) remained unchanged.

  4. In the SRT task (9 blocks), 0.8/0.3% of the trials were classified as RT outliers and 2.5/2.0% of the trials were excluded due to errors in the correlated-tasks/30% responses condition, respectively. In the tone-discrimination task (6 blocks), 0.2/0.1% of the trials were classified as RT outliers. In 14.2/9.7% of the trials the voice-key data in the correlated-tasks/30% responses condition, respectively did not match the required response. Additionally, 3.9% of the “no response” trials in the 30% responses condition were excluded because participants nevertheless responded to the (wrong) tone. As some trials also fulfilled multiple exclusion criteria, overall 12.0/5.7% of all trials were excluded.

  5. In Experiment 2, 7 participants reported full/partial SRTT sequence knowledge. Full sequence knowledge was reported by 1 participant in the correlated-tasks condition. Partial sequence knowledge was reported by 4 participants in the correlated-tasks condition and 2 participants in the 30% responses condition. When these 7 participants were excluded from the test blocks analysis, the pattern of results (RTs and error rates) remained unchanged.

  6. In the SRT task (9 blocks), 0.7/4.6% of the trials were classified as RT outliers and 2.5/6.1% of the trials were excluded due to errors in the ideomotor/listen-only condition, respectively. In the tone-discrimination task (6 blocks; ideomotor condition), 3.0% of the trials were classified as RT outliers. In 14.2% of the trials the voice-key data did not match the required response. As some trials also fulfilled multiple exclusion criteria, overall 12.2/6.7% of all trials in the ideomotor/listen-only condition, respectively were excluded.

  7. In Experiment 3, 5 participants reported full/partial SRTT sequence knowledge. Full sequence knowledge was reported by 1 participant in the listen-only condition. Partial sequence knowledge was reported by 2 participants in the ideomotor condition and 2 participants in the listen-only condition. When these 5 participants were excluded from the test blocks analysis, the pattern of results (RTs and error rates) remained unchanged.

  8. In the SRT task (9 blocks), 0.5% of the trials were classified as RT outliers and 2.3% of the trials were excluded due to errors. In the tone-discrimination task (6 blocks), 0.0% of the trials were classified as RT outliers. In 15.7% of the trials the voice-key data did not match the required response. As some trials also fulfilled multiple exclusion criteria, overall 12.8% of all trials were excluded.

  9. In Experiment 4, no participant reported full/partial SRTT sequence knowledge. In our replication of Experiment 4 (see the discussion) with 10 new participants, one participant reported partial knowledge.

References

  • Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 603–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühner, M., & Ziegler, M. (2009). Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. München: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans, A. (2011). The radical plasticity thesis: How the brain learns to be conscious. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(1), 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z., & Seth, A. (2010). Gambling on the unconscious: A comparison of wagering and confidence ratings as measures of awareness in an artificial grammar task. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(2), 674–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: Further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 477–486.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt, K., Esser, S., & Haider, H. (2017). Abstract feature codes: The building blocks of the implicit learning system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi:10.1037/xhp0000380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedberg, M., Wagschal, T. T., & Hazeltine, E. (2014). Incidental learning and task boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1680–1700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 567–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, P. A., Lin, J., & Buchner, A. (1998). Learning versus behavioral expression of the learned: The effects of a secondary tone-counting task on implicit learning in the serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 61(2), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, P. A., Wenke, D., & Rünger, D. (1999). A secondary tone-counting task suppresses expression of knowledge in the serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 260–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1367–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, H., Eichler, A., & Lange, T. (2011). An old problem: How can we distinguish between conscious and unconscious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task? Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 658–672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: The relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 413–432.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorson, K. M., Wagschal, T. T., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Conceptualization of task boundaries preserves implicit sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 1005–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 59(2), 119–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., Lupiáñez, J., & Vaquero, J. M. (2009). Sequential congruency effects in implicit sequence learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(3), 690–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110(2), 316–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeller, B., Pfister, R., Kunde, W., & Frings, C. (2016). A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1074–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rah, S. K., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000). Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It’s probably not dual-task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 309–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasky (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60(1–2), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, N. W., Gaschler, R., & Frensch, P. A. (2012a). Implicit learning of what comes when and where within a sequence: The time-course of acquiring serial position-item and item-item associations to represent serial order. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 83–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, N. W., Gaschler, R., Keisler, A., & Frensch, P. A. (2012b). Position–item associations play a role in the acquisition of order knowledge in an implicit serial reaction time task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 440–456.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1995). The role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The influence of task instructions on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 595–613.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ziessler, M., Nattkemper, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2004). The role of anticipation and intention in the learning of effects of self-performed actions. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 163–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Ziessler and a second anonymous reviewer for their many helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Str. 2, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Eva Röttger & Hilde Haider

  2. Department of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Universitätsstr. 33, 58084, Hagen, Germany

    Fang Zhao & Robert Gaschler

Authors
  1. Eva Röttger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Haider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Gaschler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Röttger.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research was supported by grants within the Priority Program, SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), Grants HA 5447/11-1 (Hilde Haider) and GA 2246/1-1 (Robert Gaschler).

Conflict of interest

Eva Röttger declares that she has no conflict of interest. Hilde Haider declares that she has no conflict of interest. Fang Zhao declares that she has no conflict of interest. Robert Gaschler declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Röttger, E., Haider, H., Zhao, F. et al. Implicit sequence learning despite multitasking: the role of across-task predictability. Psychological Research 83, 526–543 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0920-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0920-4

Search

Navigation