Psychological Research

, Volume 69, Issue 5–6, pp 352–368

Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: alternatives to a resource-based account

Original Article

Abstract

In two experiments with the serial reaction-time task, participants were presented with deterministic or probabilistic sequences under single- or dual-task conditions. Experiment 1 showed that learning of a probabilistic structure was not impaired over a first session by performing a counting task, but that such an interference arose over a second session, when the knowledge was tested under single-task conditions. In contrast, the effects of the secondary task arose earlier for participants exposed to deterministic sequences. This difference between deterministic and probabilistic sequences disappeared in Experiment 2, where the counting task was performed on tones associated to the locations. Comparisons between sessions indicated that the secondary task affected not only the expression but also the acquisition of sequence learning, and that greater interference was observed in those conditions that yielded more explicit knowledge. These results suggest that the effects of a dual task on the measures of implicit sequence learning may be partly due to the intrusion of explicit knowledge and partly due to the disruption of the sequence produced by the inclusion of random events.

References

  1. Barsalou, L. (1995). Storage side-effects: Studying processing to understand learning. In A. Ram & D. B. Leake (Eds.), Goal-driven learning (pp. 407–419). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (1998). Implicit sequence learning: The truth is in the details. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 323–364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (2002). Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective. In R. M. French & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, computational and philosophical consensus in the making? (pp. 1–40). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, C. (1998). Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 406–416.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202.Google Scholar
  7. Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 343–350.Google Scholar
  8. Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2003). Temporal effects in sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 181–213). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 3–33.Google Scholar
  10. Frensch, P. A. (1998). One concept, multiple meanings: On how to define implicit learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 47–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Frensch, P. A., Haider, H., Rünger, D., Neugebauer, U., Voigt, S., Werg, J. (2003). The route from implicit learning to verbal expression of what has been learned: Verbal report of incidentally experienced environmental regularity. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 335–366). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. 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 time task. Psychological Research, 61, 83–98.Google Scholar
  14. Frensch, P. A., & Miner, C. S. (1994). Effects of presentation rate and individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial memory. Memory & Cognition, 22, 95–110.Google Scholar
  15. 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, 260–274.Google Scholar
  16. Hsiao, A. T., & Reber, A. S. (1998). The role of attention in implicit sequence learning: Exploring the limits of the cognitive unconscious. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 471–494). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Jiménez, L. (2003). Intention, attention, and consciousness in probabilistic sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43–70). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236–259.Google Scholar
  19. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (2001). Implicit sequence learning with competing explicit cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (A), 54, 345–369.Google Scholar
  20. Jiménez, L., Méndez, C., & Cleeremans, A. (1996). Direct and indirect measures of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 948–969.Google Scholar
  21. Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316–339.Google Scholar
  22. Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.Google Scholar
  23. Rah, S., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000) Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It’s probably not dual-task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 309–313.Google Scholar
  24. Reed, J., & Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learnt about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 585–594.Google Scholar
  25. Reingold, E. M., & Merikle, P. (1988). Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 563–575.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71.Google Scholar
  27. Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Gomez, R. (1998). Attention and probabilistic sequence learning. Psychological Research, 61, 175–190.Google Scholar
  28. Shanks, D. R. (2003). Attention and awareness in “implicit” sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 11–42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Shanks, D. R., & Channon, S. (2002). Effects of a secondary task on “implicit” sequence learning: Learning or performance? Psychological Research, 66, 99–109.Google Scholar
  30. Shanks, D. R., & Perruchet, P. (2002). Dissociation between priming and recognition in the expression of sequential knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,9, 362–367.Google Scholar
  31. Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.Google Scholar
  32. Shanks, D. R., Wilkinson, L., & Channon, S. (2003). Relationship between priming and recognition in deterministic and probabilistic sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 248–261.Google Scholar
  33. Stadler, M. (1995). The role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.Google Scholar
  34. Wilkinson, L., & Shanks, D. R. (2004). Intentional control and implicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 354–369.Google Scholar
  35. Willingham, D. B., Greenberg, A. R., & Thomas, R. C. (1997). Response-to-stimulus interval does not affect implicit motor sequence learning, but does affect performance. Memory and Cognition, 25, 534–542.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de Santiago, Facultad de PsicologíaSantiagoSpain

Personalised recommendations