Associative sequence learning in humans.

Spiegel, Rainer; McLaren, Ian A.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.32.2.150

Cited by 21 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that elderly continued to respond to key-specific stimuli and the benefit of practice increased toward the end of the unstructured 6-key sequence these data were taken as an indication that the sequence-specific improvement was due to associative learning (cf. MacKay, 1982; Spiegel & MacLaren, 2006). In the serial RT task—in which participants respond to successive key-specific stimuli too—associative learning is assumed to occur at several processing levels in (e.g., Abrahamse, Jiménez, Verwey, & Clegg, 2010; Keele, Ivry, Hazeltine, Mayr, & Heuer, 2003).…”

Section: The Previous Study On Elderlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge

Verwey

Abrahamse

Ruitenberg

et al. 2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined whether middle-aged participants, like young adults, learn movement patterns by preparing and executing integrated sequence representations (i.e., motor chunks) that eliminate the need for external guidance of individual movements. Twenty-four middle-aged participants (aged 55–62) practiced two fixed key press sequences, one including three and one including six key presses in the discrete sequence production task. Their performance was compared with that of 24 young adults (aged 18–28). In the middle-aged participants motor chunks as well as explicit sequence knowledge appeared to be less developed than in the young adults. This held especially with respect to the unstructured 6-key sequences in which most middle-aged did not develop independence of the key-specific stimuli and learning seems to have been based on associative learning. These results are in line with the notion that sequence learning involves several mechanisms and that aging affects the relative contribution of these mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: The Previous Study On Elderlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge

Verwey

Abrahamse

Ruitenberg

et al. 2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the SARAH model in Spiegel and McLaren, 2003) and it has proven useful (e.g. in allowing us to explain the quite remarkable parallels between predictions made by the SRN and human sequence learning in Spiegel and McLaren, 2006; whilst still allowing us to explain the quite different pattern of results generated by rule-based generalization in Spiegel and McLaren, 2003), but ultimately we would concede that this state of affairs is very unlikely to reflect reality. Instead, our view is better expressed by asserting that cognition is controlled association.…”

Section: Cognition and Associationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations and propositions: The case for a dual-process account of learning in humans

McLaren

Forrest

McLaren

et al. 2014

Neurobiology of Learning and Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

N.J. Mackintosh (2104). Associations and Propositions: The case for a dual-process account of learning in humans. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 108,. AbstractWe review evidence that supports the conclusion that people can and do learn in two distinct ways -one associative, the other propositional. No one disputes that we solve problems by testing hypotheses and inducing underlying rules, so the issue amounts to deciding whether there is evidence that we (and other animals) also rely on a simpler, associative system, that detects the frequency of occurrence of different events in our environment and the contingencies between them. There is neuroscientific evidence that associative learning occurs in at least some animals (e.g., Aplysia californica), so it must be the case that associative learning has evolved. Since both associative and propositional theories can in principle account for many instances of successful learning, the problem is then to show that there are at least some cases where the two classes of theory predict different outcomes. We offer a demonstration of cue competition effects in humans under incidental conditions as evidence against the argument that all such effects are based on cognitive inference. The latter supposition would imply that if the necessary information is unavailable to inference then no cue competition should occur. We then discuss the case of unblocking by reinforcer omission, where associative theory predicts an irrational solution to the problem, and consider the phenomenon of the Perruchet effect, in which conscious expectancy and conditioned response dissociate. Further discussion makes use of evidence that people will sometimes provide one solution to a problem when it is presented to them in summary form, and another when they are presented in rapid succession with trial-by trial information. We also demonstrate that people trained on a discrimination may show a peak shift (predicted by associative theory), but given the time and opportunity to detect the relationships between S+ and S-, show rule-based behaviour instead. Finally, we conclude by presenting evidence that research on individual differences suggests that variation in intelligence and explicit problem solving ability are quite unrelated to variation in implicit (associative) learning, and briefly consider the computational implications of our argument, by asking how both associative and propositional processes can be accommodated within a single framework for cognition.

show abstract

“…Spiegel & McLaren, 2006;Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991); specifically, that learning be driven by error-correction and be influenced by the short-term priming effect of learning on recent trials. Given this, our analysis suggests that we might expect to observe poor learning of sub-sequences comprising repetitions, relative to other sub-sequences, under incidental conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human sequence learning under incidental and intentional conditions.

Jones¹,

McLaren²

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explored the role that dissociable associative learning and hypothesis-testing processes may play in human sequence learning. Two two-choice SRT tasks were conducted, one under incidental conditions and the other under intentional conditions. In both cases an experimental group was trained on four sub-sequences (i.e. XXX, XYY, YYX and YXY). To control for sequential-effects, sequence learning was assayed by comparing their performance to a control group that had been trained on a pseudo-random ordering, during a test-phase in which both groups experienced effectively the same trial-order. Under incidental conditions participants demonstrated learning of the sub-sequences that ended in an alternation, but not of those that ended in a repetition. In contrast, under intentional conditions XXX showed the greatest evidence of learning. This dissociation is explained using a two-process model of learning, with an associative process (the Augmented SRN) capturing the incidental pattern, and a rule-based process explaining the advantage for XXX under intentional conditions. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Associative sequence learning in humans.

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge

Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge

Associations and propositions: The case for a dual-process account of learning in humans

Human sequence learning under incidental and intentional conditions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About