Movements or targets: What makes an action in action–effect learning?

According to ideomotor theory, actions become linked to the sensory feedback they contingently produce, so that anticipating the feedback automatically evokes the action it typically results from. Numerous recent studies have provided evidence in favour of such action–effect learning but left an important issue unresolved. It remains unspecified to what extent action–effect learning is based on associating effect-representations to representations of the performed movements or to representations of the targets at which the behaviour aimed at. Two experiments were designed to clarify this issue. In an acquisition phase, participants learned the contingency between key presses and effect tones. In a following test phase, key–effect and movement–effect relations were orthogonally assessed by changing the hand–key mapping for one half of the participants. Experiment 1 showed precedence for target–effect over movement–effect learning in a forced-choice RT task. In Experiment 2, target–effect learning was also shown to influence the outcome of response selection in a free-choice task. Altogether, the data indicate that both movement–effect and target–effect associations contribute to the formation of action–effect linkages—provided that movements and targets are likewise contingently related to the effects.     

Can corrective feedback improve recognition memory?

An understanding of the effects of corrective feedback on recognition memory can inform both recognition theory and memory training programs, but few published studies have investigated the issue. Although the evidence to date suggests that feedback does not improve recognition accuracy, few studies have directly examined its effect on sensitivity, and fewer have created conditions that facilitate a feedback advantage by encouraging controlled processing at test. In Experiment 1, null effects of feedback were observed following both deep and shallow encoding of categorized study lists. In Experiment 2, feedback robustly influenced response bias by allowing participants to discern highly uneven base rates of old and new items, but sensitivity remained unaffected. In Experiment 3, a false-memory procedure, feedback failed to attenuate false recognition of critical lures. In Experiment 4, participants were unable to use feedback to learn a simple category rule separating old items from new items, despite the fact that feedback was of substantial benefit in a nearly identical categorization task. The recognition system, despite a documented ability to utilize controlled strategic or inferential decision-making processes, appears largely impenetrable to a benefit of corrective feedback.     

注意和工作记忆对交错呈现优势的影响

以家族相似性图案为材料,让被试在单任务或双任务条件下以集中呈现或交错呈现的方式进行观察（实验1）或反馈（实验2）学习,记录眼动,探究注意对交错呈现优势的影响,以及工作记忆在其中的作用。发现当进行观察学习时,注意影响交错呈现优势,结果支持区别对比理论和注意衰减理论;当进行反馈学习时,注意的影响还有待进一步探究。同时,工作记忆影响交错呈现优势,但工作记忆并非完全通过影响注意从而影响交错呈现优势。     

Concurrent Movement Impairs Incidental But Not Intentional Statistical Learning

The effect of concurrent movement on incidental versus intentional statistical learning was examined in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants learned the statistical regularities embedded within familiarization stimuli implicitly, whereas in Experiment 2 they were made aware of the embedded regularities and were instructed explicitly to learn these regularities. Experiment 1 demonstrated that while the control group were able to learn the statistical regularities, the resistance‐free cycling group and the exercise group did not demonstrate learning. This is in contrast with the findings of Experiment 2, where all three groups demonstrated significant levels of learning. The results suggest that the movement demands, rather than the physiological stress, interfered with statistical learning. We suggest movement activates the striatum, which is not only responsible for motor control but also plays a role in incidental learning.     

Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: a case for action-perception transfer

Transfer from perception to action is well documented, for instance in the form of observational learning. Transfer from action to perception, on the other hand, has not been researched. Such action-perception transfer (APT) is compatible with several learning theories and has been predicted within the framework of common coding of perceptual and motor events (Prinz, 1992, 1997). Our first experiment aimed at an empirical evaluation of APT and involved motor practice of timed two-cycle arm movements on verbal command without visual feedback. In a transfer test, visual judgments of similar patterns had to be made. In addition, transfer from the visual to the motor task was studied. In Experiment 2 we separated kinesthetic aspects of motor practice from preparatory and efferent contributions to APT. The experiments provide evidence that transfer between perception and action is bi-directional. Transfer from perception to action and, more importantly, from action to perception was found. Furthermore, APT was equally pronounced for participants who had actively practiced movements during training and for passive participants who had received merely kinesthetic feedback about the movement. This kinesthetic-visual transfer is likely to be achieved via visuomotor-kinesthetic matching or via timekeeping mechanisms that are involved in both motor and visual performance. Received: 2 June 1999 / Accepted: 20 June 2000     

A safety mechanism for observational learning

This empirical article presents the first evidence of a “safety mechanism” based on an observational-learning paradigm. It is accepted that during observational learning, a person can use different strategies to learn a motor skill, but it is unknown whether the learner is able to circumvent the encoding of an uncompleted observed skill. In this study, participants were tested in a dyadic protocol in which an observer watched a participant practicing two different motor sequences during a learning phase. During this phase, one of the two motor sequences was interrupted by a stop signal that precluded motor learning. The results of the subsequent retention test revealed that both groups learned the two motor sequences, but only the physical practice group showed worse performance for the interrupted sequence. The observers were consequently able to use a safety strategy to learn both sequences equally. Our findings are discussed in light of the implications of the action observation network for sequence learning and the cognitive mechanisms of error-based observation.     

The effects of humor on memory for non-sensical pictures

Two experiments investigated the effects of humor on memory for non-sensical pictures. Each picture was given three labels that differed in the degree of humor: high, low, and no humor labels. In Experiment 1, the humor of the picture labels was manipulated between participants. Participants were shown 30 pictures for 10 s each and were asked to rate the degree of humor of each picture. After the rating task, participants were asked to draw the pictures in an unexpected memory test. Performance in the memory test was best in the high humor label group, followed by the low and the no humor label groups. In Experiment 2, intention to learn (incidental versus intentional encoding tasks) as well as humor label was manipulated between the participants. In the incidental learning condition, the high humor group performed better than the low humor group, but in the intentional learning condition, there was no humor effect. The effects of humor on picture memory were discussed in terms of appraisal processing within a distinctiveness framework.     

How do students improve their value-based learning with task experience?

When learning items that vary in reward, students improve their scores (i.e., earned reward) with task experience. In four experiments, we examined whether such improvements arise from better selective encoding of items that would earn more (vs. less) reward. Participants studied and recalled words across multiple study-test trials. On each trial, 12 words were slated with different values (typically from 1 to 12), and participants earned the point value assigned to a given word if it was correctly recalled. In all experiments, participants earned more points across the first two trials. In Experiment 1, participants either self-paced their study or had experimenter-paced study and in Experiment 2, some participants were penalised for each second spent during study. Improvements in points earned were related to increases in overall recall but not to selective encoding. In Experiment 3, some participants were given value-emphasised instructions, yet they did not demonstrate selective encoding. In Experiment 4, we used a larger range of point values, but selective encoding still did not account for the improvement in point scores across lists. These results suggest that metacognitively-driven selective encoding is not necessary to observe improvements in value-based learning.     

Self-control of feedback during motor learning: accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked group with self-control over feedback

A traditional control group yoked to a group that self-controls their reception of feedback receives feedback in the same relative and absolute manner. This traditional control group typically does not learn the task as well as the self-control group. Although the groups are matched for the amount of feedback they receive, the information is provided on trials in which the individual may not request feedback if he or she were provided the opportunity. Similarly, individuals may not receive feedback on trials for which it would be a beneficial learning experience. Subsequently, the mismatch between the provision of feedback and the potential learning opportunity leads to a decrement in retention. The present study was designed to examine motor learning for a yoked group with the same absolute amount of feedback, but who could self-control when they received feedback. Increased mental processing of error detection and correction was expected for the participants in the yoked self-control group because of their choice to employ a limited resource in the form of a decreasing amount of feedback opportunities. Participants in the yoked with self-control group committed fewer errors than the self-control group in retention and the traditional yoked group in both the retention and time transfer blocks. The results suggest that the yoked with self-control group was able to produce efficient learning effects and can be a viable control group for further motor learning studies.     

Learning is impaired by activated intentions

Two experiments examined the task interference that sometimes accrues from having an intention. In standard prospective memory tasks, latency is often slower to an ongoing task performed concurrently with having an intention than it is when no intention is given. If the locus of this slowing resulted from different attentional allocation policies in the two cases, we predicted that the process of learning a word list would be impaired if participants had an intention rather than if they did not. Four different event-based prospective memory tasks were used in Experiment 1 to demonstrate that worse free recall of a word list resulted when studied with a concurrent intention than with a control condition that had no intention. In that experiment, linking an intention to a distal context that was to occur after learning did not impair free recall. Two time-based tasks were used in Experiment 2 to demonstrate that possessing a time-based prospective memory also hinders learning, unless the intention is linked to a future context that is expected to occur after the study session. In the latter case, no impairment was obtained.     

不同编码对听写困难儿童字形记忆的促进效应

听写困难是一种发生率较高的儿童学习障碍现象。实验考察笔画语音编码和动作编码对听写困难儿童字形记忆水平的影响。结果发现, 笔画语音编码对听写困难儿童的字形记忆成绩没有明显影响, 但却明显促进了正常儿童的字形记忆成绩; 与之相对, 动作编码对正常儿童的字形记忆成绩没有明显影响, 但却明显促进了听写困难儿童的字形记忆成绩。上述现象, 既可能源于编码加工阶段, 也可能源于字形表征的提取阶段。     

Imagery of errors in typing

Using a typing task we investigated whether insufficient imagination of errors and error corrections is related to duration differences between execution and imagination. In Experiment 1 spontaneous error imagination was investigated, whereas in Experiment 2 participants were specifically instructed to imagine errors. Further, in Experiment 2 we manipulated correction instructions (whether or not to correct errors) and controlled for visual feedback in executed typing (letters appearing on the screen or not). Participants executed and imagined typing proverbs of different lengths. Errors and error corrections explained a significant amount of variance of execution minus imagination differences in Experiment 1, and in Experiment 2 when participants were instructed to correct errors, but not when participants were instructed not to correct errors. In Experiment 2 participants corrected and reported more errors with than without visual feedback. However, the relation between execution − imagination duration differences and errors and error corrections was unaffected by visual feedback. The types of errors reported less often in imagination than in execution were related to processes in typing execution. We conclude that errors and error corrections are not spontaneously imagined during motor imagery, and that even when attention is drawn to their occurrence only some are imagined. This may be due to forward models not predicting all aspects of an action, imprecise forward models, or a neglect of monitoring error signals during motor imagery.     

Motor resources in peripersonal space are intrinsic to spatial encoding: Evidence from motor interference

The aim of this study was to explore the role of motor resources in peripersonal space encoding: are they intrinsic to spatial processes or due to action potentiality of objects? To answer this question, we disentangled the effects of motor resources on object manipulability and spatial processing in peripersonal and extrapersonal spaces. Participants had to localize manipulable and non-manipulable 3-D stimuli presented within peripersonal or extrapersonal spaces of an immersive virtual reality scenario. To assess the contribution of motor resources to the spatial task a motor interference paradigm was used. In Experiment 1, localization judgments were provided with the left hand while the right dominant arm could be free or blocked. Results showed that participants were faster and more accurate in localizing both manipulable and non-manipulable stimuli in peripersonal space with their arms free. On the other hand, in extrapersonal space there was no significant effect of motor interference. Experiment 2 replicated these results by using alternatively both hands to give the response and controlling the possible effect of the orientation of object handles. Overall, the pattern of results suggests that the encoding of peripersonal space involves motor processes per se, and not because of the presence of manipulable stimuli. It is argued that this motor grounding reflects the adaptive need of anticipating what may happen near the body and preparing to react in time.     

Intention in motor learning through observation

The purpose of this experiment was to assess whether learning an action through observation is enhanced by the intention to reproduce the observed behaviour. Two groups of participants observed a model practise a timing task and performed a 24-hour delayed retention test. Participants in the first group of observers were explicitly instructed that they would be required to execute the timing task that they had observed as accurately as possible during the delayed retention test. Observers in the second group were instructed that they would be required to describe as accurately as possible the behaviour that they had observed. A control group of participants, who did not observe the model, was also administered the delayed retention test. The results of the retention test indicated that absolute timing (parameterization) was learned by the observers to the same extent with or without intention to reproduce the task. Indeed, on the retention test absolute timing for the two groups of observers was as effective as that for the models. However, observing with an intention to reproduce the task was beneficial for learning the movement's relative timing structure. Results are discussed with respect to a potential mechanism by which intention enhances observation.     

The Role of Concurrent Feedback in Learning to Walk Through Sliding Doors

Concurrent feedback is defined as information about performance given to participants during the execution of an action. This article investigates whether concurrent feedback is beneficial or detrimental to the learning of an ecologically relevant task. Eighteen participants were asked to walk through a virtual corridor and they practiced over 1110 trials to adjust their walking speed so as to pass through sliding doors that opened and closed at a frequency of 1 Hz. Concurrent feedback informed them about the possible need to accelerate or decelerate. Performance of participants who received concurrent feedback on 66% of the practice trials (on average) did not differ significantly from performance of participants who did not receive concurrent feedback. Furthermore, participants of both of these groups significantly outperformed participants who received concurrent feedback on all practice trials. These results are discussed in relation to the perceptual-motor mechanisms that underlie the control of the action. Also discussed are implications for future research, including the use of self-controlled feedback and the use of multisensory training programs.     

Performance bias: Why judgments of learning are not affected by learning

Past research has shown a performance bias: People expect their future performance level on a task to match their current performance level, even when there are good reasons to expect future performance to differ from current performance. One explanation of this bias is that judgments are controlled by what learners can observe, and while current performance is usually observable, changes in performance (i.e., learning or forgetting) are not. This explanation makes a prediction that we tested here: If learning becomes observable, it should begin to affect judgments. In three experiments, after practicing a skill, participants estimated how they performed in the past and how they expected to perform in the future. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants knew they had been improving, as shown by their responses, yet they did not predict that they would improve in the future. This finding was particularly striking because (a) they did improve in the future and (b) as Experiment 3 showed, they did hold the conscious belief that past improvement predicted future improvement. In short, when learning and performance are both observable, judgments of learning seem to be guided by performance and not learning.     

Intention in motor learning through observation

The purpose of this experiment was to assess whether learning an action through observation is enhanced by the intention to reproduce the observed behaviour. Two groups of participants observed a model practise a timing task and performed a 24-hour delayed retention test. Participants in the first group of observers were explicitly instructed that they would be required to execute the timing task that they had observed as accurately as possible during the delayed retention test. Observers in the second group were instructed that they would be required to describe as accurately as possible the behaviour that they had observed. A control group of participants, who did not observe the model, was also administered the delayed retention test. The results of the retention test indicated that absolute timing (parameterization) was learned by the observers to the same extent with or without intention to reproduce the task. Indeed, on the retention test absolute timing for the two groups of observers was as effective as that for the models. However, observing with an intention to reproduce the task was beneficial for learning the movement's relative timing structure. Results are discussed with respect to a potential mechanism by which intention enhances observation.     

The effects of implementation intention strategies on prospective memory cue encoding

Implementation intentions, which include a structured verbal statement and mental imagery, improve prospective memory performance (i.e. remembering to execute delayed intentions). To investigate whether, and how, implementation intention strategies affect encoding processes we had participants complete a thought probe procedure immediately after forming the intention to remember to press Q when seeing fruit words. In Experiment 1, an implementation intention verbal statement (relative to control statement) significantly increased generation of high typicality exemplars (apple, banana, orange). In Experiment 2, an implementation intention imagery procedure (relative to control imagery) produced similar outcomes. In Experiment 3, combining the statement and imagery components of the implementation intention (relative to control statement and imagery) demonstrated even more potent effects (e.g. three-fold increase in fruit exemplars generated). In Experiment 4, we tested whether the control statement versus control imagery procedure differentially affected encoding, but these control procedures showed no significant differences. An interesting, unanticipated finding was that there was significantly less mind wandering in the implementation intention conditions relative to the control conditions. The current experiments provide novel information on the processes operating during intention encoding, and support the classic view that implementation intentions increase the encoding of specific retrieval cues.