Direct Comparison of Neural Systems Mediating Conscious and Unconscious Skill Learning

Abstract

Procedural learning, such as perceptual-motor sequence learning, has been suggested to be an obligatory consequence of practiced performance and to reflect adaptive plasticity in the neural systems mediating performance. Prior neuroimaging studies, however, have found that sequence learning accompanied with awareness (declarative learning) of the sequence activates entirely different brain regions than learning without awareness of the sequence (procedural learning). Functional neuroimaging was used to assess whether declarative sequence learning prevents procedural learning in the brain. Awareness of the sequence was controlled by changing the color of the stimuli to match or differ from the color used for random sequences. This allowed direct comparison of brain activation associated with procedural and declarative memory for an identical sequence. Activation occurred in a common neural network whether initial learning had occurred with or without awareness of the sequence, and whether subjects were aware or not aware of the sequence during performance. There was widespread additional activation associated with awareness of the sequence. This supports the view that some types of unconscious procedural learning occurs in the brain whether or not it is accompanied by conscious declarative knowledge.

Emergence of rhythm during motor learning

“…The shift of activation from the posterior cerebellar lobe to the anterior lobe is also observed during learning how to use a computer mouse with a novel rotational transformation, a skill that does not involve learning a specific sequence [58]. A learningrelated transition from controlled to automatic mode has been proposed previously by Fitts [59] and Anderson [60], and a recent model has stressed the parallel mechanisms between the two modes of processing [2,61]. We suggest that automatic mechanisms for motor performance operate from the beginning of learning but predominate at later stages.…”

To know or not to know: influence of explicit advance knowledge of occlusion on interceptive actions

“…For instance, movement kinematics are consistent with an optimized use of visual feedback when an occlusion is expected, compared to a default strategy when occlusion and no occlusion of vision are equally likely (Jakobson and Goodale 1991;Khan et al 2002;Hansen et al 2006). Neural evidence for the influence of advance knowledge has been shown in motor learning (Willingham et al 2002). Being explicitly aware of a repeating sequence activates additional brain areas in the posterior parietal, superior parietal and dorsal prefrontal cortex.…”

“…Accordingly, both trial-by-trial adaptations and cognition could affect kinematics on the current trial , although this is likely to be influenced by the specific task constraints (i.e., duration and locus of occlusion, nature of eye movements required to track the approaching ball). Indeed, while a common neural network has been identified for procedural and declarative learning, additional brain regions (i.e., posterior parietal, superior parietal and dorsal prefrontal cortex) have been shown to be activated when explicit advance (declarative) knowledge was provided in sequence learning (Willingham et al 2002).…”

Disruption of Sequential Priming in Organic and Pharmacological Amnesia: A Role for the Medial Temporal Lobes in Implicit Contextual Learning

“…To the extent that they are able to distinguish between hippocampal activity on the one hand and that in entorhinal, perirhinal, and parahippocampal cortices on the other, they may shed light on the involvement of these different structures in contextual learning and priming as well as in declarative learning. Many studies have measured regional brain activation during the SRT task (eg Honda et al, 1998;Willingham et al, 2002) but these have invariably examined performance across a long block of learning trials instead of directly manipulating contextual support as in the studies reported here. Such tests are inadequate for examining contextual priming.…”