Abstract.
The present experiments aimed at separating the impact stimulus and response predictions have on serial learning and performance in SRT tasks. In Experiment 1, a unique transition between two of four responses in an otherwise random response sequence was triggered by ambiguous stimulus transitions, allowing local response predictions but no stimulus predictions. The data indicated explicit transition knowledge and strong performance benefits. In Experiments 2 and 3, unique transitions between two of four stimuli in otherwise random stimulus sequences allowed local stimulus predictions under conditions of ambiguous response transitions. The data indicated fragmentary explicit transition knowledge but no performance effects. Experiments 4a and 4b reveal that the inefficacy of the unique stimulus transitions in Experiments 2 and 3 was presumably due to the fact that the stimuli differed with respect to conjunctions of response relevant and response irrelevant features which participants did not have to attend. However, although in Experiments 4a and 4b unique transitions between response relevant stimuli were applied, substantial explicit transition knowledge but only marginal performance effects resulted. It is argued i) that in SRT tasks learning mechanisms are addressed that primarily strive for reliable predictions of forthcoming responses and ii) that for these mechanisms to work the predictors have to be attended. Response transitions are easily learned and used because both criteria are fulfilled. In contrast, pure stimulus transitions are learned only if the predictive stimuli are attended, and learned stimulus transitions become effective only to the extent that the predicted stimuli specify the required responses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In fact, the stimulus transitions which triggered the unique response transition were also varied between blocks. In Blocks 2 to 5 one of the transitions was unique, i.e. after a particular card another particular card always followed which was never preceded by another card. In block 6 this unique stimulus transition was abolished. This variation had no impact at all on RTs or on error rates. As the finding that one unique amongst a total of 16 by 16 possible stimulus transition is apparently not learned if confounded with a unique response transition surely does not allow concluding that unique stimulus transitions in general are not learned in SRT tasks, we skip this detail.
Although the performance data of the only participant who failed to indicate the unique response transition are in no case meaningful, it might be nevertheless interesting to notice that she showed the same data pattern over blocks as the "aware" participants (cf. Figure 1).
As we intended to compare the data of Experiments 3 and 4b with data collected with children (publication in preparation), we adopted the number of blocks and trials per block which were reduced in the experiments with children.
It is to be noted that in the Jiménez & Méndez (1999) study participants did not adapt to the unequivocal transitions between individual stimuli but rather to transitions between the response-relevant categories of the used stimuli (shapes and locations). Accordingly, merely the use of distinct response relevant features should not suffice in order to evoke stimulus transition learning unless not different responses are required by the different features. However, as the data will show, the present experiments indicate substantial explicit learning of the unique transition between individual stimuli despite the fact that transitions between the response-relevant stimulus categories were still ambiguous. The different results may be due to the fact that in the Jiménez & Méndez study, the predictive stimuli were to be attended to in the context of a secondary task, whereas in the present experiments the unique transition referred to the imperative stimuli of the only reaction time task.
References
Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cleeremans, A. & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235–253.
Cohen, A., Ivry, R. & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1902). Grundzüge der Psychologie (Vol. 1). Leipzig: Veit und Companie.
Fendrich, D. W., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. (1991). Long-term representation effects for motoric and perceptual procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 137–151.
Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A. & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 567–584.
Frensch, P. A. & Miner, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in short-term-memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 95–110.
Frensch, P. A. & Miner, C. S. (1995). Zur Rolle des Arbeitsgedächtnisses beim impliziten Sequenzlernen. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 42, 545–575.
Goschke, T. (1998). Implicit learning of perceptual and motor sequences: Evidence for independent learning systems. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 401–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. (1995). Functional mapping of sequence learning in normal humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 497–510.
Grafton, S. T, Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420–9428.
Hazeltine, E. (2002). The representational nature of implicit sequence learning: evidence for goal-based codes. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and performance (Vol. XIX). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 673–689.
Hendrickx, H., de Houwer, J., Baeyens, F., Eelen, P., & van Avermaet, E. (1997). Hidden covariation detection might be very hidden indeed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 210–220.
Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1998). Implicit learning of loosely defined structures. In M. A. Stadler & P. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Learning (pp. 161–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoffmann, J., & Sebald, A. (1996). Reiz- und Reaktionsmuster in seriellen Wahlreaktionen. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, XLIII, 40–68.
Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stoecker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470–482.
Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A. & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1029–1039.
Hunt, R. H., & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 658–680.
Jiménez, L. & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236–259.
Jiménez, L., Méndez, C., & Cleeremans, A. (1996). Comparing direct and indirect measures of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 948–969.
Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). The special status of locations in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 863–882.
Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.
Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J, & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica, 109, 137–155.
Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behaviour. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behaviour (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.
Lewicki, P. (1986). Processing information about covariations that cannot be articulated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 135–146.
Lewicki, P., Hill, T. & Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47, 796–801.
Lewicki, P., Hill, T. & Czyzewska, M. (1997). Hidden covariation detection: a fundamental and ubiquitous phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 221–228.
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Nattkemper, D. & Prinz, W. (1993). Processing structured event sequences. In C. Bundesen & A. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the European society for cognitive psychology (pp. 21–22). Copenhagen: ESCOP.
Nattkemper, D. & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98–112.
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.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extend. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444–474.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Stadler, M. A. (1989). On learning complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1061–1069.
Stadler, M. A. (1992). Statistical structure and implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 318–327.
Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.
Stadler, M. A. & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Handbook of Implicit Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stoecker, C., Sebald, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (in press).
Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561–572.
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.
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.
Ziessler, M. (1994). The impact of motor responses on serial learning. Psychological Research, 57, 30–41.
Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 962–978.
Ziessler, M. & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 595–613.
Acknowledgements.
Funding of this research was provided by the German Research Foundation (Grant HO 1301/3–1). We thank A. Cohen and L. Jiménez for valuable comments on an earlier version and C. Stöcker for improving the English.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Transition matrices of Experiment 1
Experimental Blocks 2–6 and 8 | |||||
key 1 | key 2 | key 3 | key 4 | ||
key 1 | 22 | 21 | – | 21 | 64 |
key 2 | – | – | 64 | – | 64 |
key 3 | 21 | 22 | – | 21 | 64 |
key 4 | 21 | 21 | – | 22 | 64 |
Control Blocks 1 and 7 | |||||
Key 1 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 64 |
key 2 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 64 |
key 3 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 64 |
key 4 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 64 |
Transition matrices of Experiment 2 and 4a
Experimental Blocks 2–5 and 7 | |||||
card 1 | card 2 | card 3 | card 4 | ||
card 1 | 22 | 21 | – | 21 | 64 |
card 2 | – | – | 64 | – | 64 |
card 3 | 21 | 22 | – | 21 | 64 |
card 4 | 21 | 21 | – | 22 | 64 |
Control Blocks 1 and 6 | |||||
card 1 | 11 | 10 | 21 | 22 | 64 |
card 2 | 11 | 11 | 21 | 21 | 64 |
card 3 | 21 | 22 | 11 | 10 | 64 |
card 4 | 21 | 21 | 11 | 11 | 64 |
Transition matrices of Experiment 3 and 4b
Experimental Blocks 1–3 and 5 | |||||
card 1 | card 2 | card 3 | card 4 | ||
card 1 | 10 | 11 | – | 11 | 32 |
card 2 | – | – | 32 | – | 32 |
card 3 | 11 | 10 | – | 11 | 32 |
card 4 | 11 | 11 | – | 10 | 32 |
Control Block 4 | |||||
card 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 11 | 32 |
card 2 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 32 |
card 3 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 32 |
card 4 | 11 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 32 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffmann, J., Martin, C. & Schilling, A. Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions. Psychological Research 67, 160–173 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0117-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0117-2