Abstract feature codes: The building blocks of the implicit learning system.

Eberhardt, Katharina; Esser, Sarah; Haider, Hilde

doi:10.1037/xhp0000380

Cited by 18 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from a recent implicit learning study offer insight into why dual-task costs may not have been incurred when the PM AV task was paired with the IM VM task. Eberhardt et al (2017) showed that participants could not learn a stimulus location sequence and a response location sequence simultaneously when both sequences used spatial codes. They could, however, learn distinct stimulus and response sequences simultaneously when one of them was coded as a color-sequence; this allowed the learning of the location sequence to take place without interference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Tasks Into Distinct Domains, Not Set-Level Compatibility, Minimizes Dual-Task Interference

Halvorson

Hazeltine

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual-task costs are often significantly reduced or eliminated when both tasks use compatible stimulus-response (S-R) pairs. Either by design or unintentionally, S-R pairs used in dual-task experiments that produce small dual-task costs typically have two properties that may reduce dual-task interference. One property is that they are easy to keep separate; specifically, one task is often visual-spatial and contains little verbal information and the other task is primarily auditory-verbal and has no significant spatial component. The other property is that the two sets of S-R pairs are often compatible at the set-level; specifically, the collection of stimuli for each task is strongly related to the collection of responses for that task, even if there is no direct correspondence between the individual items in the sets. In this paper, we directly test which of these two properties is driving the absence of large dual-task costs. We used stimuli (images of hands and auditory words) that when previously been paired with responses (button presses and vocal utterances) produced minimal dual-task costs, but we manipulated the shape of the hands in the images and the auditory words. If set-level compatibility is driving efficient performance, then these changes should not affect dual-task costs. However, we found large changes in the dual-task costs depending on the specific stimuli and responses. We conclude that set-level compatibility is not sufficient to minimize dual-task costs. We connect these findings to divisions within the working memory system and discuss implications for understanding dual-task performance more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Tasks Into Distinct Domains, Not Set-Level Compatibility, Minimizes Dual-Task Interference

Halvorson

Hazeltine

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gast et al's (2020 this issue) findings could be interpreted as evidence speaking to qualitative differences between evaluative learning and learning of motor responses or perceptual categories which have been demonstrated in the absence of conscious knowledge (e.g. Eberhardt, Esser, & Haider, 2017; see also Greenwald & De Houwer, 2017). Illuminating the commonalities and differences between various learning effects and learning paradigms could help outline the boundary conditions of (automatic) evaluative learning (see also Walther, Halbeisen, & Blask, 2018).…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic processes in evaluative learning

Hütter

Rothermund

2020

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of Cognition and Emotion assembles recent advances in theorising and empirical research on the automaticity of evaluative learning. Based on a taxonomy of automatic processes in evaluative learning, we distinguish between processes that are involved in translating evaluative experiences into evaluative mental representations (acquisition), and processes that translate these representations into evaluative biases in perception, thought, and action (activation and application). We emphasise that automaticity concerns the operating conditions of these processes (unawareness, unintentionality, uncontrollability, efficiency), not their operating principles, and thus can vary within specific processes (e.g. inferences can occur in either an automatic or non-automatic fashion). We review and discuss contemporary theories and methodological approaches to automatic processes in evaluative learning against the backdrop of our framework, and we highlight the contributions of the papers of this special issue to the question whether and when evaluative changes can occur in an automatic manner.

show abstract

“…Therefore, lower trial numbers allow to obtain reliable effects. Finally, a limited amount of practice in the task is required to avoid the confound of possible learning effects in event file coding (Colzato, Raffone, & Hommel, ; Eberhardt, Esser, & Haider, ; Hommel & Colzato, ). Here, we report η 2 effect size for ANOVA main effects and interactions, and confidence interval of 90% for the effect sizes (Steiger, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting EEG signal decomposition and response selection processes using the theory of event coding framework

Takács

Zink

Wolff

et al. 2020

Human Brain Mapping

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the integration of perception and action are an important topic in cognitive neuroscience. Yet, connections between neurophysiology and cognitive theoretical frameworks have rarely been established. The theory of event coding (TEC) details how perceptions and actions are associated (bound) in a common representational domain (the “event file”), but the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying these processes are hardly understood. We used complementary neurophysiological methods to examine the neurophysiology of event file processing (i.e., event‐related potentials [ERPs], temporal EEG signal decomposition, EEG source localization, time‐frequency decomposition, EEG network analysis). We show that the P3 ERP component and activity modulations in inferior parietal regions (BA40) reflect event file binding processes. The relevance of this parietal region is corroborated by source localization of temporally decomposed EEG data. We also show that temporal EEG signal decomposition reveals a pattern of results suggesting that event file processes can be dissociated from pure stimulus and response‐related processes in the EEG signal. Importantly, it is also documented that event file binding processes are reflected by modulations in the network architecture of theta frequency band activity. That is, when stimulus–response bindings in event files hamper response selection this was associated with a less efficient theta network organization. A more efficient organization was evident when stimulus–response binding in event files facilitated response selection. Small‐world network measures seem to reflect event file processing. The results show how cognitive‐theoretical assumptions of TEC can directly be mapped to the neurophysiology of response selection.

show abstract

Abstract feature codes: The building blocks of the implicit learning system.

Cited by 18 publications

References 62 publications

Separation of Tasks Into Distinct Domains, Not Set-Level Compatibility, Minimizes Dual-Task Interference

Separation of Tasks Into Distinct Domains, Not Set-Level Compatibility, Minimizes Dual-Task Interference

Automatic processes in evaluative learning

Connecting EEG signal decomposition and response selection processes using the theory of event coding framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About