More Than Hitting the Correct Key Quickly
Spatial Variability in Touch Screen Response Location Under Multitasking in the Serial Reaction Time Task
Abstract
Abstract. Many studies have documented that multitasking reduces Response Time (RT) indicators of implicit sequence learning as well as the expression of acquired sequence knowledge in RT benefits. In these tasks it is only relevant that the correct key is hit quickly, not where it is hit. We explored how variability in response location is influenced by (a) breaking a repeating sequence of target locations, (b) multitasking demands in the current trial, and (c) presence of multitasking in the block. Participants performed a Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) on a touchscreen while shutting down a beep tone by pressing the space bar with their non-dominant hand (throughout Experiment 1 and in the second half of Experiment 2). The first-order sequence of four response locations on the screen was broken by off-sequence deviants in 1/6th of the trials. Our results show a dissociation between RT and response location variability. While the effect of breaking the sequence on RT was larger under single- than under multitasking, breaking the sequence only led to an increase in response location variability under multitasking. Experiment 3 suggested that the impact of sequence knowledge on either aspect of performance in the SRTT is limited by interference from an additional task.
References
2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 603–623. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.5.603
(2013). Age-related differences in attentional costs associated with postural dual tasks: Increased recruit-ment of generic cognitive resources in older adults. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1824–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.014
(2015). Learning to explore the structure of kinematic objects in a virtual environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00374
(2002).
(Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective . In R. M. FrenchA. CleeremansEds., Implicit learning and consciousness (pp. 1–40). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.189
(2012). Scheduling observational and physical practice: Influence on the coding of simple motor sequences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1260–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.654126
(2017). Implicit and explicit knowledge both improve dual task performance in a continuous pursuit tracking task. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e2241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02241
(1998). Learning vs behavioral expression of the learned: The effects of a secondary tone-counting task on implicit learning in the Serial Reaction Task. Psychological Research, 61, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050015
(1994). Effects of presentation rate and individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202765
(1999). A secondary tone-counting task suppresses performance in the Serial Reaction Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.260
(2018, January 18). TouchScreenSRTT. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/P2DF5. Retrieved from https://osf.io/p2df5/
(2014). Transferring control demands across incidental learning tasks – Stronger sequence usage in serial reaction task after shortcut option in letter string checking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, e1388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01388
(2013). Automatic online control of motor adjustments in reaching and grasping. Neuropsychologia, 55, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.12.005
(1995). Functional mapping of sequence learning in normal humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.4.497
(2005). Are strategy shifts caused by data-driven processes or by voluntary processes? Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.12.002
(2007). How to investigate insight: A proposal. Methods, 42, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.004
(2015). Online control of reaching and pointing to visual, auditory, and multimodal targets: Effects of target modality and method of determining correction latency. Vision Research, 117, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.08.019
(2017). A common capacity limitation for response and item selection in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1690–1698. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000408
(2014). Orienting attention in visual working memory requires central capacity: Decreased retro-cue effects under dual-task conditions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0615-x
(1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.236
(2005). Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: Alternatives to a resource-based account. Psychological Research, 69, 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0210-9
(1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.3.596
(1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1995.9941696
(2012). Stronger effects of self-generated vs. cue-induced expectations in event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, e562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00562
(2016). Validation of the continuous tracking paradigm for studying implicit motor learning. Experimental Psychology, 63, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000343
(2012). Dynamic estimation of task-relevant variance in movement under risk. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 12702–12711. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.6160-11.2012
(2017). Effects of trying ‘not to move’ instruction on cortical load and concurrent cognitive performance. Psychological Research, 82, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0928-9
(2001). Walking while memorizing: Age-related differences in compensatory behavior. Psychological Science, 12, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00341
(2005). Combined expectancy effects: An accumulator model. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 214–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.05.002
(2006). Combined expectancies: Electrophysiological evidence for adjusted expectancy effects. BMC Neuroscience, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-7-37
(1995). Indirect learning of event sequences: The effects of divided attention and stimulus continuity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.49.4.415
(1928). Plasticity and mechanization of the problem box habit in guinea pigs. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 8, 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074566
(2013). Probabilistic sequence learning in mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 318. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00318
(1994). Hesitations in manual tracking: A single-channel limit in response programming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 766–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.766
(1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
(2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: Evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627
(2009). Intermanual transfer and practice: Coding of simple motor sequences. Acta Psychologica, 131, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.004
(1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.358
(1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
(2013). Adaptation of motor control strategies to environmental cues in a pursuit-tracking task. Experimental Brain Research, 228, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3546-9
(2004). Evidence for disproportionate dual-task costs in older adults for episodic but not semantic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000206
(2019). Implicit sequence learning despite multitasking – The role of across-task predictability. Psychological Research, 83, 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0920-4
(2008). How incidental sequence learning creates reportable knowledge: The role of unexpected events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012942
(2010). Defining consciousness in the context of incidental sequence learning: Theoretical considerations and empirical implications. Psychological Research, 2, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0225-8
(2015). The influence of cognitive load and walking speed on gait regularity in children and young adults. Gait & Posture, 41, 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.10.013
(2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934
(1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00419680
(2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015378
(1998). Attention and probabilistic sequence learning. Psychological Research, 61, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050023
(2010). Implicit sequence learning is represented by stimulus – Response rules. Memory & Cognition, 38, 677–688. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.38.6.677
(2012). Generalized lessons about sequence learning from the study of the serial reaction time task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0113-1
(2002). Effects of a secondary task on “implicit” sequence learning: Learning or performance? Psychological Research, 66, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-001-0081-2
(2003). Relationship between priming and recognition in deterministic and probabilistic sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.248
(1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.674
(2013). Effects of extensive dual-task practice on processing stages in simultaneous choice tasks. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 900–920. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0451-z
(1911). Animal intelligence. New York, NY: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.55072
(2015). Tracking and discrete dual task performance with different spatial stimulus-response mappings. Ergonomics, 58, 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.978901
(2013). Coordination of degrees of freedom and stabilization of task variables in a complex motor skill: Expertise-related differences in cello bowing. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3314-2
(1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.105.3.558
(