Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asymmetrical effects of control on the expression of implicit sequence learning

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

Abstract

As an automatic process, implicit learning effects have been characterized as inflexible and largely tied to the reinstatement of the acquisition context. However, implicit learning transfer has been observed under certain conditions, depending on the changes introduced between training and transfer. Here, we assess the hypothesis that transfer is specifically hindered by those changes that increase the control demands required by the orienting task with respect to those faced over training. Following on previous results by Jiménez et al. (J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cognit 32(3):475–490, 2006), which showed that the learning acquired over a standard serial reaction time task was not transferred to conditions requiring a more demanding search task, we explored the impact of symmetrical training and transfer conditions, and showed that sequence learning survived such transfer. Four additional experiments designed to assess transfer to either lower or higher control demands confirmed that the expression of learning was selectively hindered by those transfer conditions requiring higher levels of control demands. The results illustrate how implicit sequence learning can be indirectly subjected to cognitive control.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Notice that, in the referenced studies, the normalization procedure was conducted to control for between-participants differences in RT baselines, and thus, they normalized the scores on the basis of the individual means and standard deviations computed over the whole task. In the present conditions, because the source of different baselines was the task used in some blocks, the normalization was conducted in terms of the individual mean and standard deviation computed for each block.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamse, E. L., Van Der Lubbe, R. H., & Verwey, W. B. (2008). Asymmetrical learning between a tactile and visual serial RT task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 210–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamse, E. L., & Verwey, W. B. (2008). Context dependent learning in the serial RTs task. Psychological Research, 72, 397–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. C., & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and practical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christ, S. E., White, D. A., Mandernach, T., & Keys, B. A. (2001). Inhibitory control across the life span. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(3), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2003_7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (2002). Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective. In A. Cleeremans & R. French (Eds.), Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical, and computational consensus in the making (pp. 1–40). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, B. A. (2005). Stimulus-specific sequence representation in serial reaction time tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(6), 1087–1101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.D. (2017). Cognitive control: Core constructs and current considerations. In T. Egner (Ed.) The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 3–28). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D., Aston-Jones, G., & Gilzenrat, M. S. (2004). A systems-level perspective on attention and cognitive control: Guided activation, adaptive gating, conflict monitoring, and exploitation vs. exploration, chapter 6. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 71–90). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    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, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, M. C., Jimenez, L., Milliken, B., & Lupianez, J. (2013). On the specificity of sequential congruency effects in implicit learning of motor and perceptual sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006). Spatial processing and perceptual sequence learning in SRT tasks. Experimental Psychology, 53(1), 16–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deroost, N., Vandenbossche, J., Zeischka, P., Coomans, D., & Soetens, E. (2012). Cognitive control: A role for implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1243–1258.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fendrich, D. W., Gesi, A. T., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1995). The contribution of procedural reinstatement to implicit and explicit memory effects in a motor task. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr. (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp. 66–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., Murphy, K., Roche, R. A., & Stein, E. A. (2002). Dissociable executive functions in the dynamic control of behavior: Inhibition, error detection, and correction. Neuroimage, 17(4), 1820–1829.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E. L., & Bourne, L. E. (2005). The procedural reinstatement principle: Studies on training, retention, and transfer. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 59–72). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyndorf, A., & Haider, H. (2009). The “Not Letting Go” phenomenon: Accuracy instructions can impair behavioral and metacognitive effects of implicit learning processes. Psychological Research, 73, 695–706.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inquisit 1.31 [Computer software]. (2002). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.

  • Janacsek, K., Fiser, J., & Nemeth, D. (2012). The best time to acquire new skills: Age-related differences in implicit sequence learning across the human lifespan. Developmental Science, 15, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01150.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (2001). Implicit sequence learning with competing explicit cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 54(2), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 271–284.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Qualitative differences between implicit and explicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 475–490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., & Vázquez, G. A. (2005). Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: Alternatives to a resource-based account. Psychological Research, 69, 352–368.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, S. W., Jennings, P., Jones, S., Caulton, D., & Cohen, A. (1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapp, S. T. (2007). Nonconscious control mimics a purposeful strategy: Strength of Stroop-like interference is automatically modulated by proportion of compatible trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1366–1376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2007). Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: Evidence from stimulus–response compatibility. Human Movement Science, 26(2), 257–274.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., Taylor, S. E., & Etherton, J. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 620–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, V., Adleman, N. E., White, C. D., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L. (2001). Error-related brain activation during a Go/NoGo response inhibition task. Human Brain Mapping, 12(3), 131–143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (1997). Episodic knowledge and implicit learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, P. J., Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1996). Dissociable properties of memory systems: Differences in the flexibility of declarative or non-declarative knowledge. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110, 861–871.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J., & Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 585–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruitenberg, M. F., De Kleine, E., Van der Lubbe, R. H., Verwey, W. B., & Abrahamse, E. L. (2012). Context-dependent motor skill and the role of practice. Psychological Research, 76(6), 812–820.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user´s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Gomez, R. L. (1998). Attention and probabilistic sequence learning. Psychological Research, 61, 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Wolf, J. D. (1963). Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age. Ergonomics, 6(1), 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, J. H., & Bédard, P. (2015). Paradoxical benefits of dual-task contexts for visuomotor memory. Psychological Science, 26, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1989). On learning complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1061–1069.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaquero, J. M. M., Jiménez, L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). The problem of reversals in assessing implicit sequence learning with serial reaction time tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 96–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2005). Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task. Psychological Research, 69(4), 242–251.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1047–1060.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrel, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response. Memory and Cognition, 28(3), 366–375.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad with research grants to Luis Jiménez (PSI 2015-70990-P) and Juan Lupiáñez (PSI 2014-52764), and by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación with a research grant to Juan Lupiáñez (PSI-2017-84926).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Joaquín M. M. Vaquero & Juan Lupiáñez

  2. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Santiago, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Luis Jiménez

Authors
  1. Joaquín M. M. Vaquero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Lupiáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Jiménez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or 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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaquero, J.M.M., Lupiáñez, J. & Jiménez, L. Asymmetrical effects of control on the expression of implicit sequence learning. Psychological Research 84, 2157–2171 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01222-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01222-1

Search

Navigation