Psychological Research

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 140–151 | Cite as

Incidental task sequence learning: perceptual rather than conceptual?

Original Article


In four experiments we investigated whether incidental task sequence learning occurs when no instructional task cues are available (i.e. with univalent stimuli). We manipulated task sequence by presenting three simple binary-choice tasks (colour, form or letter case decisions) in regular repeated or random order. Participants were required to use the same two response keys for each of the tasks. We manipulated response sequence by ordering the stimuli so as to produce either a regular or a random order of left versus right-hand key presses. When sequencing in both, or either, separate stream (i.e. task sequence and/or response sequence) was changed to random, only those participants who had processed both sequences together showed evidence of sequence learning in terms of significant response time disruption (Experiments 1–3). This effect disappeared when the sequences were uncorrelated (Experiment 4). The results indicate that only the correlated integration of task sequence and response sequence produced a reliable incidental learning effect. As this effect depends on the predictable ordering of stimulus categories, it suggests that task sequence learning is perceptual rather than conceptual in nature.



We would like to thank Beatrice Hasler, Manette Ruch-Monachon and Yves Steiner for running the experiments and Pierre Perruchet for his useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.


  1. Ahissar M, Hochstein S (1995) How early is early vision? Evidence from perceptual learning. In: Papathomas T, Chubb C, Gorea A, Kowles E (eds) Early vision and beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 199–206)Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JR (1990) Cognitive psychology and its implications. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bapi RS, Doya K, Harver AM (2000) Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Exp Brain Res 132:149–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry DC, Cock J (1998) Implicit learning of invariant features? In: Stadler MA, Frensch PA (eds) Handbook of implicit learning. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 135–160Google Scholar
  5. Cock J, Berry DC, Buchner A (2002) Negative priming and sequence learning. Eur J Cognit Psychol 14:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen A, Ivry RI, Keele SW (1990) Attention and structure in sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 16:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curran T, Keele SW (1993) Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frensch PA, Miner CS (1995) Effects of presentation of rate and of individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Mem Cogn 22:95–110Google Scholar
  9. Goldstone RL (2000) Unitization during category learning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:86–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goschke T (1998) Implicit learning of perceptual and motor responses. In: Stadler MA, Frensch PA (eds) Handbook of implicit learning. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 401–444Google Scholar
  11. Gotler A, Meiran N, Tzelgov J (2003) Nonintentional task set activation: evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychon Bull Rev 10:890–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heuer H, Schmidtke V, Kleinsorge T (2001) Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:967–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffmann J, Koch I (1997) Stimulus-response compatibility and sequential learning in the serial reaction time task. Psychol Res 60:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann J, Sebald A (1996) Reiz- und Reaktionsmuster in seriellen Wahlreaktionen. Z Exp Psychol 43:40–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys GW, Quinlan PT, Riddoch MJ (1989) Grouping processes in visual search: effects with single and combined-feature targets. J Exp Psychol Gen 118:258–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jimenez L, Mendez C (1999) Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:236–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keele SW, Jennings PJ (1992) Attention in the representation of sequence: experiment and theory. Hum Mov Sci 11:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleinsorge T, Schmidtke V, Gajewski PD, Heuer H (2003) The futility of explicit knowledge of a sequence of tasks. Eur J Cognit Psychol 15:455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koch I (2001) Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:1474–1486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Koch I, Hoffmann J (2000) The role of stimulus-based and response-based spatial information in sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 26:863–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Krueger LE (1984) The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences. Percept Psychophys 35:558–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lashley KS (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In: Jeffress LA (ed) Cerebral mechanisms in behaviour. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Marsolek CJ, Field JE (1999) Perceptual-motor sequence learning of general regularities and specific sequences. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:815–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayr U (1996) Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning. Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 22:350–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nissen MJ, Bullemer P (1987) Attentional requirements of learning: evidence from performance measures. Cognit Psychol 19:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pear JJ (2001) The science of learning. Psychology Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  27. Perruchet P, Amorim M-A (1992) Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: evidence against dissociation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 18:785–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reber PJ, Squire LR (1998) Encapsulation of implicit and explicit memory in sequence learning. J Cognit Neurosci 10:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers RD, Monsell S (1995) The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidtke V, Heuer H (1997) Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychol Res 60:53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shanks DR, Cameron A (2000) The effect of mental practice on performance in a sequential reaction time task. J Motor Behav 32:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shanks DR, Channon S (2002) Effects of a secondary task on “implicit” sequence learning: learning or performance? Psychol Res 66:99–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Shanks DR, Johnstone T (1998) Implicit knowledge in sequential learning tasks. In: Stadler MA, Frensch PA (eds) Handbook of implicit learning. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 533–572Google Scholar
  34. Shanks DR, Johnstone T (1999) Evaluating the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge in a sequential reaction time task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:1435–1451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Shin JC, Ivry RB (2002) Concurrent learning of temporal and spatial sequences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28:445–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stadler MA (1995) Role of attention in sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:674–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Willingham DB (1998) A neuropsychological theory of motor sequence learning. Psychol Rev 105:558–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Willingham DB, Nissen MJ, Bullemer P (1989) On the development of procedural knowledge. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 15:1047–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Willingham DB, Greeley T, Bardone AM (1993) Dissociation in a serial response time task using a recognition measure. Comment on Perruchet and Amorim. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:1424–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolfe JM, Friedman-Hill SR, Stewart MI, O’Connell KM (1992) The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:34–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Woodward T, Meier B, Tipper C, Graf P (2003) Bivalency is costly: bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Exp Psychol 50:233–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ziessler M (1994) The impact of motor responses on serial pattern learning. Psychol Res 57:30–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ziessler M, Nattkemper D (2001) Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: further evidence from a serial reaction time task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:595–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BernBern 9Switzerland

Personalised recommendations