Perceptual Effect on Motor Learning in the Serial Reaction-Time Task

Although the Serial Reaction-Time Task has been an effective tool in studying procedural learning, there is still a debate as to whether learning in the task is effector-based, stimulus-based, or response-based. In this article, the authors contribute to this debate by contrasting response- and stimulus-based learning by manipulating them selectively and simultaneously. Results show that (a) participants learned response sequences in the absence of stimulus-specific perceptual sequence information but (b) not stimulus sequences without corresponding response information. In a third condition, response sequence and stimulus frequency information were in conflict, and each effect decreased learning in the other domain. Overall, our findings show that learning in these tasks is primarily motor-based, but it is also constrained by relatively salient perceptual information. Together with earlier findings in the literature, the findings also suggest a task and stimulus-arrangement-specific interaction between motor and perceptual learning, where relevance and salience of the specific information plays a crucial role.     

Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: evidence from stimulus-response compatibility

Three experiments using a serial four-choice reaction-time (RT) task explored the interaction of sequence learning and stimulus-based response conflict. In Experiment 1, the spatial stimulus-response (S-R) mapping was manipulated between participants. Incompatible S-R mappings produced much higher RTs than the compatible mapping, but sequence learning decreased this S-R compatibility effect. In Experiment 2, the spatial stimulus feature was made task-irrelevant by assigning responses to symbols that were presented at unpredictable locations. The data indicated a Simon effect (i.e., increased RT when irrelevant stimulus location is spatially incompatible with response location) that was reduced by sequence learning. However, this effect was observed only in participants who developed an explicit sequence representation. Experiment 3 replicated this learning-based modulation of the Simon effect using explicit sequence-learning instructions. Taken together, the data support the notion that explicit sequence learning can lead to motor 'chunking', so that pre-planned response sequences are shielded from conflicting stimulus information.     

Effector-related sequence learning in a bimanual-bisequential serial reaction time task

In a bimanual-bisequential version of the serial reaction time (SRT) task participants performed two uncorrelated key-press sequences simultaneously, one with fingers of the left hand and the other with fingers of the right hand. Participants responded to location-based imperative stimuli. When two such stimuli appeared in each trial, the results suggest independent learning of the two sequences and the occurrence of intermanual transfer. Following extended practice in Experiment 2, transfer of acquired sequence knowledge was not complete. Also in Experiment 2, when only one stimulus appeared in each trial specifying the responses for both hands so that there was no basis for separate stimulus-stimulus or separate response-effect learning, independent sequence learning was again evident, but there was no intermanual transfer at all. These findings suggest the existence of two mechanisms of sequence learning, one hand-related stimulus-based and the other motor-based, with only the former allowing for intermanual transfer.     

What matters in implicit task sequence learning: perceptual stimulus features, task sets, or correlated streams of information?

Implicit task sequence learning may be attributed to learning the order of perceptual stimulus features associated with the task sequence, learning a series of automatic task set activations, or learning an integrated sequence that derives from 2 correlated streams of information. In the present study, our purpose was to distinguish among these 3 possibilities. In 4 separate experiments, we replicated and extended a previous study by Heuer, Schmidtke, and Kleinsorge (2001). The presence or absence of a sequence of tasks, as well as that of a sequence of different task-to-response mappings, was manipulated independently within experiments. Evidence of implicit sequence learning was found only when correlated sequences of tasks and mappings were present. No sequence learning effects were found when only a single task sequence or a single mapping sequence was present, even when the structure of the single sequence was identical to the structure of the integrated sequence of task-mapping combinations. These results suggest that implicit task sequence learning is not dependent on either perceptual learning of stimulus features or automatic task-set activation per se. Rather, it appears to be driven by correlated streams of information.     

Incidental task sequence learning: perceptual rather than conceptual?

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.     

Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual

Many reports have indicated that implicit learning of sequences in a choice response time task is primarily perceptual; subjects learn the sequence of stimuli rather than the sequence of motor responses. Three experiments tested whether implicit motor sequence learning could be purely perceptual: no support was found for that hypothesis. Subjects who merely watched stimuli did not learn the sequence implicitly (Experiment 1), and sequence learning transferred robustly to a different set of stimulus cues (Experiment 2). In the final experiment, the stimulus-response mapping was changed at transfer so that one group of subjects pushed the same sequence of keys but saw new stimuli, whereas another group pushed a different sequence of keys but saw the same stimuli. Transfer to the new mapping was shown only if the motor sequence was kept constant, not the perceptual sequence. It is proposed that subjects learn a sequence of response locations in this and similar tasks.     

The role of stimulus-based and response-based spatial information in sequence learning

In 4 experiments, relational structures were independently varied in stimulus and response sequences in a serial reaction time task. Moreover, the use of spatial and symbolic stimuli and responses was varied between experiments. In Experiment 1, spatial stimuli (asterisk locations) triggered spatial responses (keystrokes); in Experiment 2, spatial stimuli triggered symbolic responses (verbal digit naming); in Experiment 3, symbolic stimuli (digits) triggered keystrokes; and in Experiment 4, digits triggered verbal responses. The results showed that there is a remarkably stronger effect of relational structures in spatial sequences than in symbolic sequences, irrespective of whether stimulus or response sequences are concerned. This suggests that learning is particularly effective for sequences of spatial locations. It is argued that spatial learning is a critical determinant for the debate on perceptual and motor learning.     

Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: further evidence from a serial reaction task

Four experiments provide converging evidence that serial learning in a serial reaction task is based on response-effect learning, mediated by the learning of the relations between a response and the stimulus that follows it. In Experiment 1, the authors varied the stimulus sequence and the response-stimulus relations while holding the response sequence constant. Learning effects depended on the complexity of the response-stimulus relations but not on the stimulus-stimulus relations. In Experiment 2, transfer of serial learning from 1 stimulus sequence to another was only found when both sequences had identical response-stimulus relations. In Experiment 3, a variation of the stimulus sequence alone had no effect on serial learning, whereas in Experiment 4 learning effects increased when the response-stimulus relations but not the stimulus-stimulus relations were simplified. These findings suggest that serial learning is based on mechanisms of voluntary action control.     

Stimulus-specific sequence representation in serial reaction time tasks

Some recent evidence has favoured purely response-based implicit representation of sequences in serial reaction time tasks. Three experiments were conducted using serial reaction time tasks featuring four spatial stimuli mapped in categories to two responses. Deviant items from the expected sequence that required the expected response resulted in increased response latencies. The findings demonstrated a stimulus-specific form of representation that operates in the serial reaction time task. No evidence was found to suggest that the stimulus-specific learning was contingent on explicit knowledge of the sequence. Such stimulus-based learning would be congruent with a shortcut within an information-processing framework and, combined with other research findings, suggests that there are multiple loci for learning effects.     

The role of response selection in sequence learning

We investigated the role of response selection in sequence learning in the serial reaction time (SRT) task, by manipulating stimulus–response compatibility. Under conditions in which other types of learning, like perceptual, response-based, and response-effect learning, were unaffected, sequence learning was better with an incompatible than with a compatible stimulus–response mapping. Stimulus discriminability, on the other hand, had no influence on the amount of sequence learning. This indicates that the compatibility effects cannot be accounted for by a different level of task difficulty. Relating our results to the dimensional overlap model (Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990), which assumes that incompatible stimulus–response mappings require more controlled response selection than do compatible stimulus–response mapping, we suggest that sequence learning in the SRT task is particularly effective when response selection occurs in a controlled way.     

Priming and stimulus-response learning in perceptual classification tasks

Participants often respond more quickly and more accurately to a repeated stimulus compared to a non-repeated one, a phenomenon known as repetition priming. In semantic classification tasks priming appears to be largely attributable to the learning of stimulus-decision and stimulus-response associations, which allow participants to bypass many of the processes engaged during initial stimulus analysis. The current study tested whether stimulus-response learning plays a similarly dominant role in priming that occurs in perceptual classification tasks. Unfamiliar objects were used as stimuli to reduce the influence of semantic processes on priming and the task switched for all test trials to eliminate stimulus-decision learning. The results showed across-task priming as measured by reaction time facilitation and improved accuracy when the response remained the same during the encoding and test phases. When the response switched, similar levels of reaction time facilitation were observed, but priming as measured by accuracy was significantly reduced and no longer significant. These findings indicate that stimulus-response learning contributes to priming in perceptual classification tasks, but does not play a dominant role. Significant stimulus-level learning that is independent of the task and response also occurs and likely indexes facilitated perceptual processing of the objects.     

Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching

In this study, we investigated the interaction of three different sources of task activation in precued task switching. We distinguished (1) intentional, cue-based task activation from two other, involuntary sources of activation: (2) persisting activation from the preceding task and (3) stimulus-based task activation elicited by the task stimulus itself. We assumed that cue-based task activation increases as a function of cue-stimulus interval (CSI) and that task activation from the preceding trial decays as a function of response-stimulus interval Stimulus-based task activation is thought to be due to involuntary retrieval of stimulus-associated tasks. We manipulated stimulus-based task activation by mapping each of the stimuli consistently to only one or the other of the two tasks. After practice, we reversed this mapping in order to test the effects of item-specific stimulus-task association. The mapping reversal resulted in increased reaction times and increased task shift costs. These stimulus-based priming effects were markedly reduced with a long CSI, relative to a short CSI, suggesting that stimulus-based priming shows up in performance principally when competition between tasks is high and that cue-based task activation reduces task competition. In contrast, lengthening the response-cue interval (decay time) reduced shift costs but did not reduce the stimulus-based priming effect The data are consistent with separable stimulus-related and response-related components of task activation. Further theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Attention modulates the learning of multiple contingencies

We employed a novel version of the serial reaction time task to test the idea that human implicit learning allows the simultaneous learning of multiple independent contingencies and that this learning may proceed in the absence of attention. Using probabilistic sequences, we showed that both a primary sequence (the focus of the experimental task) and a statistically independent secondary sequence could be learned across 4,800 target localization trials, provided the perceptual load of the primary task was low. However, learning of the secondary sequence was abolished under conditions of high perceptual load. These findings suggest that there are attentional limitations on the learning of multiple contingencies.     

Implicit sequence learning is represented by stimulus—response rules

For nearly two decades, researchers have investigated spatial sequence learning in an attempt to identify what specifically is learned during sequential tasks (e.g., stimulus order, response order, etc.). Despite extensive research, controversy remains concerning the information-processing locus of this learning effect. There are three main theories concerning the nature of spatial sequence learning, corresponding to the perceptual, motor, or response selection (i.e., central mechanisms underlying the association between stimulus and response pairs) processes required for successful task performance. The present data investigate this controversy and support the theory that stimulus—response (S—R) rules are critical for sequence learning. The results from two experiments demonstrate that sequence learning is disrupted only when the S—R rules for the task are altered. When the S—R rules remain constant or involve only a minor transformation, significant sequence learning occurs. These data implicate spatial response selection as a likely mechanism mediating spatial sequential learning.     

Representing serial action and perception

This article presents a review on the representational base of sequence learning in the serial reaction time task. The first part of the article addresses the major questions and challenges that underlie the debate on implicit and explicit learning. In the second part, the informational content that underlies sequence representations is reviewed. The latter issue has produced a rich and equivocal literature. A taxonomy illustrates that substantial support exists for associations between successive stimulus features, between successive response features, and between successive response-to-stimulus compounds. We suggest that sequence learning is not predetermined with respect to one particular type of information but, rather, develops according to an overall principle of activation contingent on task characteristics. Moreover, substantiating such an integrative approach is proposed by a synthesis with the dual-system model (Keele, Ivry, Mayr, Hazeltine, & Heuer, 2003).     

Implicit visual learning and the expression of learning

Although the existence of implicit motor learning is now widely accepted, the findings concerning perceptual implicit learning are ambiguous. Some researchers have observed perceptual learning whereas other authors have not. The review of the literature provides different reasons to explain this ambiguous picture, such as differences in the underlying learning processes, selective attention, or differences in the difficulty to express this knowledge. In three experiments, we investigated implicit visual learning within the original serial reaction time task. We used different response devices (keyboard vs. mouse) in order to manipulate selective attention towards response dimensions. Results showed that visual and motor sequence learning differed in terms of RT-benefits, but not in terms of the amount of knowledge assessed after training. Furthermore, visual sequence learning was modulated by selective attention. However, the findings of all three experiments suggest that selective attention did not alter implicit but rather explicit learning processes.     

Motor response influences perceptual awareness judgements

What is the relation between perceptual awareness and action? In this study we tested the hypothesis that motor response influences perceptual awareness judgements. We used a perceptual discrimination task in which presentation of the stimulus was immediately followed by a cue requiring a motor response that was irrelevant to the task but could be the same, opposite, or neutral to the correct response to the stimulus. After responding to the cue, participants rated their stimulus awareness using the Perceptual Awareness Scale, and then carried out their discrimination response. Participants reported a higher level of stimulus awareness after carrying out responses that were either congruent or incongruent with the response required by the stimulus, compared to the neutral condition. The results suggest that the motor response overlapping with a potential response to the stimulus provides information about the outcome of decision process and increases the reported awareness of stimuli.     

Concurrent learning of temporal and spatial sequences

In a serial reaction time task, stimulus events simultaneously defined spatial and temporal sequences. Responses were based on the spatial dimension. The temporal sequence was incidental to the task, defined by the response-to-stimulus intervals in Experiment 1 and stimulus onset asynchronies in Experiment 2. The two sequences were either of equal length and correlated or of unequal length. In both experiments, spatial learning occurred regardless of sequence length condition. In contrast, temporal learning occurred only in the correlated condition. These results suggest that timing is an integrated part of action representations and that incidental learning for a temporal pattern does not occur independently from the action. Interestingly, sequence learning was enhanced in the correlated condition, reflecting the integration of spatial-temporal information.     

Auditory sequence learning: differential sensitivity to task relevant and task irrelevant sequences

Using a serial reaction time task, this study examines whether learning of auditory sequences is possible without a corresponding motor response, i.e., by listening alone. The dual sequence paradigm used by Mayr (in Journal of the Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and cognition 22:350–354, 1996, Experiment 1) was adapted to the auditory domain. Four different actors spoke the same four colour words. These were presented such that speaker identity followed one sequence, and the word spoken followed a different sequence. Subjects were asked to respond (with a key press) to one of these dimensions (identity or word), and ignore the other. Results showed learning for either type of stimulus, but only when it was responded to. No learning of either type of auditory sequence by listening alone was found. The results add evidence to visual implicit learning studies that have failed to find learning of event sequences when spatial or response selection was not an important factor in processing. The findings are discussed in the context of implicit learning as a general and fundamental cognitive process.     

Intention and attention in ideomotor learning

Human actions may be carried out in response to exogenous stimuli (stimulus based) or they may be selected endogenously on the basis of the agent's intentions (intention based). We studied the functional differences between these two types of action during action-effect (ideomotor) learning. Participants underwent an acquisition phase, in which each key-press (left/right) triggered a specific tone (low pitch/high pitch) either in a stimulus-based or in an intention-based action mode. Consistent with previous findings, we demonstrate that auditory action effects gain the ability to prime their associated responses in a later test phase only if the actions were selected endogenously during acquisition phase. Furthermore, we show that this difference in ideomotor learning is not due to different attentional demands for stimulus-based and intention-based actions. Our results suggest that ideomotor learning depends on whether or not the action is selected in the intention-based action mode, whereas the amount of attention devoted to the action-effect is less important.