바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.3

Citation Share

The Relationship between Dimensions Influences Dual-Sequence Learning: The Concurrent Learning of Nested Visuospatial Sequences

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2012, v.24 no.3, pp.265-280
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.3.004
Jacqueline Chakyung Shin (Indiana State University)
Jacqueline, C. S. (2012). The Relationship between Dimensions Influences Dual-Sequence Learning: The Concurrent Learning of Nested Visuospatial Sequences. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24(3), 265-280, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.3.004

Abstract

Humans are capable of learning sequential information from multiple stimulus dimensions simultaneously, but the factors influencing the selection of specific sequences for learning remains unclear. In order to investigate the role of cross-dimensional distinctiveness in sequence learning, in a serial reaction time task, sequences were presented on two dimensions that were very low in distinctiveness. Repeating sequences were presented in two visuospatial dimensions nested hierarchically within each other-a local spatial dimension that specified the correct response on each trial and a global spatial dimension that indicated the general display region of the stimulus. In the phase-repeat condition, the two sequences were consistently matched in phase, allowing an integrated representation of the two sequences to be formed. In the phase-change condition, the two sequences differed in length and were not correlated. In the phase-repeat condition, integrative learning was found for the cross-dimensional pattern, but individual sequence learning was not found. In the phase-change condition only the global sequence was learned, but not the local sequence. Thus, integrative and individual sequence learning did not occur simultaneously, neither was individual sequence learning complete. Furthermore, learning for individual sequences and the cross-dimensional information had an over-additive influence on performance. This pattern of results contrasts with previous research that showed simultaneous learning for both cross-dimensional and individual sequence information presented in highly distinct dimensions. The current results are attributed to the combination of the two closely related dimensions and suggest that individual and integrative sequence learning can be constrained due to interactions between indistinctive dimensions at encoding or working memory activation stages of processing.

keywords
순서 학습, 암묵 학습, 공간 학습, sequence learning, implicit learning, visuospatial learning

Reference

1.

Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 829-839.

2.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol.8, pp.47-89). NewYork: Academic Press.

3.

Broadbent, D. E. (1977). The hidden preattentive process. American Psychologist, 32, 109-118.

4.

Cock, J., & Meier, B. (2007). Incidental task sequence learning: Perceptual rather than conceptual? Psychological Research, 71, 140-151.

5.

Frensch, P. A., & Miner, C. S. (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.

6.

Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236-259.

7.

Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316-339.

8.

Keele, S. W., Jennings, P., Jones, S., Caulton, D., Cohen, A. (1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17-30.

9.

Kinchla, R. A., & Wolfe, J. (1979). The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out.” Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 1-10.

10.

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.

11.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before the trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-393.

12.

Rah, S. K.-Y., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000). Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: it’s probably not dual task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 309-313.

13.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.

14.

Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53-71.

15.

Shin, J. C., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Concurrent learning of temporal and spatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 445-457.

16.

Shin, J. C. (2008). The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal learning. Psychological Research, 72, 376-386.

17.

Stadler, M. A. (1993). Implicit serial learning: Questions inspired by Hebb (1961). Memory & Cognition, 21, 819-827.

18.

Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674-685.

19.

Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561-572.

20.

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.

21.

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy