Psychological Research

, Volume 60, Issue 1–2, pp 53–71

Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning

  • V. Schmidtke
  • H. Heuer
Original Article

Abstract

In several studies it has been found that implicit sequence learning is impaired by the concurrent performance of a secondary task. In most studies the task was to count high-pitched tones when high-pitched and low-pitched tones were presented in a random sequence. In this paper the hypothesis is examined that dual-task interference in the particular combination of tasks results from task integration, in particular from the learning of an integrated visual-auditory sequence in which every second (auditory) element is random. Instead of the tone-counting task a similar go/no-go task was used in which foot responses to high-pitched tones were performed. In Exp. 1 the sequence of tones was random in one condition, but in two other conditions repeated tone sequences of 5 and 6 elements were combined with visual sequences of 6 elements. Under dual-task test conditions, implicit learning of the visual as well as the auditory sequences was better with the auditory sequence of 6 elements than of 5 elements, while under single-task test conditions the nature of the tone sequence had no effect. In Exp. 2 the superior implicit learning with the 6-element sequence was replicated with different test procedures in which either the visual or auditory sequence was changed to random or in which the two sequences remained intact but were shifted by one element relative to each other. Randomization of the visual or auditory sequences not only impaired visual or auditory RT, respectively, but also impaired RT to stimuli in the other modality, and this cross-modal effect was almost as strong as the intra-modal effect of randomization. Finally, in Exp. 3 it was shown that integrated visual-auditory sequences are learned only when responses to both of them are required, but not when the tones can be neglected. These results are consistent with a conception of implicit learning as (at least partly) a basic and nonselective type of learning of all potentially behaviorally relevant relations between stimuli in the environment and one's own actions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Interactive tasks and the implicit-explicit distinction. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 251–272.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and non-attentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202.Google Scholar
  4. Damos, D. (1991). Dual-task methodology: Some common problems. In: D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance. (pp. 101–119) London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 567–584.Google Scholar
  6. Goschke, T. (1994, March) Prozedurales Lernen von strukturierten Ereignissequenzen. Paper presented at the workshop “Sequenzlernen, Bewußsein and Aufmerksamkeit”, Schwerte, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Hay, J. C., & Goldsmith, W. M. (1973). Space-time adaptation of visual position constancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 1–9.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, N., & Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Two modes of learning for interactive tasks. Cognition, 28, 249–276.Google Scholar
  9. Held, R., Efstathiou, A., & Greene, M. (1966). Adaptation to displaced and delayed visual feedback from the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 887–891.Google Scholar
  10. Heuer, H. (1985). Some points of contact between models of central capacity and factor analytic models. Acta Psychologica, 60, 135–155.Google Scholar
  11. Heuer, H. (1996) Doppeltätigkeiten. In: O. Neumann & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie C II 2: Aufmerksamkeit (pp. 163–218). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  12. Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 59, 119–133.Google Scholar
  13. Heuer, H., Schmidt, R. A., & Ghodsian, D. (1995). Generalized motor programs for rapid bimanual tasks: A two-level multiplicative-rate model. Biological Cybernetics, 73, 343–356.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Keele, S. W., & Jennings, P. J. (1992). Attention in the representation of sequence: Experiment and theory. Human Movement Science, 11, 125–138.Google Scholar
  16. Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 350–364.Google Scholar
  17. McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651–667.Google Scholar
  18. Navon, D. (1984). Resources — A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.Google Scholar
  19. Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements for learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 1987, 1–32.Google Scholar
  20. Nissen, M. J., Knopman, D. S., & Schacter, C. L. (1987). Neurochemical dissociation of memory systems. Neurology, 37, 789–794.Google Scholar
  21. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.Google Scholar
  22. Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023–1040.Google Scholar
  23. Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M. -A. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 785–800.Google Scholar
  24. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.Google Scholar
  25. Reber, A. S. (1992). The cognitive unconscious: An evolutionary perspective. Consciousness & Cognition, 1, 93–133.Google Scholar
  26. 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, 584–594.Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.Google Scholar
  29. Welch, R. B. (1978). Perceptual modification: Adapting to altered sensory environments. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1047–1060.Google Scholar
  31. Zießler, M. (1994). The impact of motor responses on serial-pattern learning. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 57, 30–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Schmidtke
    • 1
  • H. Heuer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations