Perceptual Load Improves the Expression but not Learning of Relevant Sequence Information
Abstract
In two experiments, we investigated the hypothesis of Rowland and Shanks (2006a) that sequence learning of relevant information is resistant to variations in perceptual load. Under conditions of increased selection difficulty, participants incidentally learned a sequence of targets presented together with three distractors. Target and distractors were composed of pairs of letters and shared more or less features with each other, rendering perceptual identification of the target either more (high load) or less (low load) attention demanding. The expression of sequence learning improved significantly under high load conditions as compared to low load conditions. This could indicate that the cognitive system promotes the development of response-based sequence learning in order to cope with the attentional demands arising from high perceptual load. However, the learning process proved to be unaffected by perceptual load when tested under baseline conditions without distractors (Experiment 1) or under opposite load conditions as during training (Experiment 2). This demonstrates that sequence learning is not influenced by increasing selection demands and suggests that sequence learning runs independently of input attention.
References
(1998). Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 406–416.
(1998). In , Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 323–364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 275–281.
(1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 189–202.
(2006a). Spatial processing and perceptual sequence learning in SRT tasks. Experimental Psychology, 53, 16–30.
(2006b). Perceptual or motor learning in SRT tasks with complex sequence structures. Psychological Research, 70, 88–102.
(2006c). The role of response selection in sequence learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 449–456.
(2006). Effector-dependent and response location learning of probabilistic sequences in SRT tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 469–480.
(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
(1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and abscence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 567–584.
(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.
(1999). A secondary tone-counting task suppresses expression of knowledge in the serial reaction time task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 260–274.
(1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 59, 119–133.
(2001). The dual-task SRT procedure: Fine-tuning the timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 336–342.
(2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1105–1124.
(1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 236–259.
(2005). Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: Alternatives to a resource-based account. Psychological Research, 69, 352–369.
(2007). Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: Evidence from stimulus–response compatibility. Human Movement Science, 26, 257–274.
(2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.
(1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98–112.
(1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.
(2000). Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It’s probably not dual-task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 309–313.
(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.
(2006a). Sequence learning and selection difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 287–299.
(2006b). Attention modulates the learning of multiple contingencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 643–648.
(2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 518–597.
(1997). Task integration as factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71.
(2002). E-prime, Version 1.1. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
(2003). Attention and awareness in “implicit” sequence learning. In , Attention and implicit learning (pp. 11–42). John Benjamins B.V.
(2004). Sequence learning and sequential effects. Psychological Research, 69, 124–137.
(1995). The role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 674–685.
(1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561–572.
