Feature codes in implicit sequence learning: perceived stimulus locations transfer to motor response locations

Abstract

An important question in implicit sequence learning research is how the learned information is represented. In earlier models, the representations underlying implicit learning were viewed as being either purely motor or perceptual. These different conceptions were later integrated by multidimensional models such as the Dual System Model of Keele et al. (Psychol Rev 110(2):316-339, 2003). According to this model, different types of sequential information can be learned in parallel, as long as each sequence comprised only one single dimension (e.g., shapes, colors, or response locations). The term dimension, though, is underspecified as it remains an open question whether the involved learning modules are restricted to motor or to perceptual information. This study aims to show that the modules of the implicit learning system are not specific to motor or perceptual processing. Rather, each module processes an abstract feature code which represents both response- and perception-related information. In two experiments, we showed that perceiving a stimulus-location sequence transferred to a motor response-location sequence. This result shows that the mere perception of a sequential feature automatically leads to an activation of the respective motor feature, supporting the notion of abstract feature codes being the basic modules of the implicit learning system. This result could only be obtained, though, when the task instructions emphasized the encoding of the stimulus-locations as opposed to an encoding of the color features. This limitation will be discussed taking into account the importance of the instructed task set.

Why Does Dual-Tasking Hamper Implicit Sequence Learning?

“…Moreover, in the field of implicit associative learning, evidence for cross-modal learning is controversial. On the one hand, the findings of many other researchers in this field suggest that implicit learning is modality specific and does not take place across modalities (e.g., Conway & Christiansen, 2006;Eberhardt, Esser, & Haider, 2017;Frost, Armstrong, Siegelman, & Christiansen, 2015;Haider, Esser, & Eberhardt, 2018;Kemény & Meier, 2016;Li, Zhao, Shi, Lu, & Conway, 2018;Walk & Conway, 2016). On the other hand, however, a few findings suggest that the formation of cross-modal associations is possible (e.g., Mitchel & Weiss, 2010;Seitz, Kim, van Wassenhove, & Shams, 2007;Taesler, Jablonowski, Fu, & Rose, 2019).…”

What triggers explicit awareness in implicit sequence learning? Implications from theories of consciousness

“…Research on implicit learning implies that implicit learning processes can occur in parallel (Goschke & Bolte, 2012;Haider et al, 2012Haider et al, , 2014Haider et al, , 2020Mayr, 1996). Yet, it is not granted that higher-order learning processes can happen in parallel for all implicit learning processes.…”

Lower‐level associations in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: Convergence between hyperbinding of stimulus and response features and procedural hyperfunctioning theories

“…These characteristics support not only the idea of an independent, striatal procedural memory function in the human memory (Eberhardt et al, 2017; Haider et al, 2020; Squire, 2004, 2009; Ullman, 2004, 2016) but also that procedural knowledge is encapsulated and operates through highly specialized dimensions of information, or so called modules (Eberhardt et al, 2017; Haider et al, 2020). These modules are the building blocks of procedural information acquisition and determine the limits of procedural learning capacities.…”

“…This encapsulated mode of activation closely resembles habitual behaviour. Thus, event file binding provides a process‐level explanation of how S‐R associations behind habits come to existence (Beste & Münchau, 2018; Kleimaker, Kleimaker, et al, 2020), whereas procedural memory likely builds upon the event files to promote the long‐term persistence of habits (Eberhardt et al, 2017; Haider et al, 2020). Therefore, both should be considered to play an important part of the cognitive neurophysiology of GTS.…”

“…Sequence learning, however, largely relies on processing and storing the order of S‐R contingencies (Conway, 2020; Dehaene et al, 2015). Thus, the relationship between binding and sequence learning processes are likely complex (Eberhardt et al, 2017; Haider et al, 2020) and not always evident in neurotypical population due to testing methods (Moeller & Frings, 2019a). However, current findings in GTS suggest that the connections between individual bindings and bindings in sequential regularities need to be studied in more details.…”