Item-to-item associations in typing: Evidence from spin list sequence learning.

Abstract

Associations are formed among the items in a sequence over the course of learning, but these item-to-item associations are not sufficient to reproduce the order of the sequence (Lashley, 1951). Contemporary theories of serial order tend to omit these associations entirely. The current paper investigates whether item-to-item associations play a role in serial order, specifically focusing on whether these associations influence how typists order their keystrokes. To address this question, participants completed variants of the spin list learning procedure (Ebenholtz, 1963). In these experiments, participants practiced typing nonword anagram sequences, and the order of the letters between anagrams was manipulated. Between half of the anagram sequences, both absolute and relative letter order were made inconsistent by scrambling the letters according to a balanced Latin square. For the other half, the letters were instead spun, making absolute order inconsistent but keeping relative order consistent. Learning was faster for anagram sequences with consistent relative order (Experiment 1). Practice on spun sequences with consistent relative order transferred to unpracticed sequences with the same relative order (Experiment 2). Transfer to unpracticed sequences did not depend on the absolute position of the letters in the unpracticed sequences (Experiment 3). However, transfer disappeared if letter order was reversed (Experiment 4). These results suggest that typing does make use of item-to-item associations, at least when associative interference is minimized. Although not sufficient, item-to-item associations are a necessary component of serial order in typing. (PsycINFO Database Record

Do item-dependent context representations underlie serial order in cognition? Commentary on Logan (2021).

“…Strong evidence for associations between items has been found using the spin-list paradigm (Kahana et al, 2010;Lindsey & Logan, 2019, 2021. In this paradigm, participants initially study a list of items such as ABCDEF G. In the spin-list condition, on subsequent trials participants study a rotated, or "spun" list of the same items, such as DEF GABC, whereas in the control-list condition participants study the same list without variation in its starting position.…”

“…Strong evidence for associations between items has been found using the spin-list paradigm (Kahana et al, 2010;Lindsey & Logan, 2019, 2021. In this paradigm, participants initially study a list of items such as ABCDEFG.…”

A multi-representation approach to the contextual interference effect: effects of sequence length and practice

“…Motor chunks would include only a limited number of responses (Abrahamse et al, 2013;Verwey, 2001), but multiple studies have shown that the indications for segmentation of longer sequences vanish with extended practice (Acuna et al, 2014;Ramkumar et al, 2016;Wymbs et al, 2012). This suggests that sequence learning at the motor level is based on response-response associations that do not impose a length restriction (Lindsey & Logan, 2019;Logan, 2020). This explains findings that the execution rate of individual responses of a well-known motor sequence increase with 1 Verbal knowledge may develop after executing keying sequences in the DSP task, but verbal coding may also precede the execution of these motor sequences (De Kleine & Verwey, 2009;Verwey, Lammens, & van Honk, 2002), like when learning to type in one's ATM pin number on a keyboard with an unfamiliar layout (Krakauer, Hadjiosif, Xu, Wong, & Haith, 2019;Verwey, 2015).…”

“…Second, we investigated the nature of the CI effect in that RP may benefit 2 Central-symbolic and sequential motor representations may well be based on the same associative chaining mechanism. This consists of associations developing between low-level representations that are repeatedly active at the same time (Abrahamse, Jiménez, Verwey, & Clegg, 2010;Lindsey & Logan, 2019;MacKay, 1982MacKay, , 1990. There is now extensive neural evidence that associative learning is a general learning mechanism that occurs in sensory and motor neural systems (Beukema & Verstynen, 2018;Meyer & Olson, 2011;Mushiake, Inase, & Tanji, 1991) and in perception, memory, and action (Logan, 2020).…”

“…So, we argue that the indications for concatenation with relatively short, discrete sequences can be attributed solely to centralsymbolic representations that develop because of repeated preparation in short-term memory, and that with more extensive practice reliance on these central-symbolic representations reduces because sequence execution is increasingly controlled by activation of successive response at the motor level of processing (cf. Lindsey & Logan, 2019;Logan, 2020).…”