Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: alternatives to a resource-based account

Jiménez, Luís; Vázquez, Gustavo A.

doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0210-9

Cited by 74 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, it is consistent with multiple-system views of implicit and explicit learning (e.g., Berry & Dienes, 1993;Curran & Keele, 1993;Jimenez & Vazquez, 2005;Willingham & Goedert Eschmann, 1999). In contrast, single-system accounts hold that one mechanism underlies the knowledge derived from both implicit and explicit learning (e.g., Destrebecqz & Cleeremans, 2003;Shanks, Wilkinson, & Channon, 2003).…”

Section: A Multiple-system Account Of Implicit and Explicit Learningsupporting

confidence: 69%

The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity.

Scott

Dienes

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of subjective familiarity in the implicit and explicit learning of artificial grammars. Experiment 1 found that objective measures of similarity (including fragment frequency and repetition structure) predicted ratings of familiarity, that familiarity ratings predicted grammaticality judgments, and that the extremity of familiarity ratings predicted confidence. Familiarity was further shown to predict judgments in the absence of confidence, hence contributing to above-chance guessing. Experiment 2 found that confidence developed as participants refined their knowledge of the distribution of familiarity and that differences in familiarity could be exploited prior to confidence developing. Experiment 3 found that familiarity was consciously exploited to make grammaticality judgments including those made without confidence and that familiarity could in some instances influence participants' grammaticality judgments apparently without their awareness. All 3 experiments found that knowledge distinct from familiarity was derived only under deliberate learning conditions. The results provide decisive evidence that familiarity is the essential source of knowledge in artificial grammar learning while also supporting a dual-process model of implicit and explicit learning.

show abstract

Section: A Multiple-system Account Of Implicit and Explicit Learningsupporting

confidence: 69%

The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity.

Scott

Dienes

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the present findings support previous warnings that the cued generation task must be treated with caution because the choice of cues may influence generation performance (Fu et al, 2010;Jiménez & Vázquez, 2005). In addition to previous findings regarding informative cues, the present study provides an additional argument against the cued generation task: The tendency to avoid generating locations that were presented as cues may systematically bias generation performance, and may erroneously suggest the presence of both implicit and explicit knowledge.…”

Section: Free Versus Cued Generationsupporting

confidence: 65%

Distorted estimates of implicit and explicit learning in applications of the process-dissociation procedure to the SRT task

Stahl

Barth

Haider

2015

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Additionally, trunk orientation target side planned comparisons were performed to test for trunk orientation effects at each speed. maintaining the number presented in working memory, has been shown to load generally on cognitive processing resources (e.g., Jimenez & Vazquez, 2005). Specifically, we used a 2 2 factorial design in which participants performed the same visual target detection from previous experiments while either standing or walking on the treadmill, and either counting or not counting the tones.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Walking reveals trunk orientation bias for visual attention

Grubb

Reed

Bate

et al. 2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

688Psychologists have long recognized that people have finite capacities to attend to different sources of information (Broadbent, 1958;Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963;James, 1948). Because we live in a dynamic environment and cannot fully attend to all information at once, we must flexibly deploy our limited attentional resources in different degrees to various information streams (Kahneman, 1973). Although researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the deployment of attention, until recently the influence of trunk orientation has been largely ignored or taken for granted.To the extent that the configuration of our body parts constrain, our actions at any moment, they influence where we direct spatial attention. Our perceptual systems serve to plan adaptive actions (Previc, 1998;Prinz, 1997), and attention is the process by which we filter and select the most task-relevant perceptual information (Kahneman & Treisman, 1984). Consequently, attention should be deployed to those regions of space most relevant for performing the action.In particular, trunk orientation should be an important anchor for spatial attention (Jeannerod & Biguer, 1987;Karnath, Schenkel, & Fischer, 1991;Ventre, Flandrin, & Jeannerod, 1984). When using sensory information to guide actions, we must determine the relative configuration of the sensory and effector organs. For example, a visually detected object's retinotopic position indicates its location relative to the eye, but we need to know the object's position relative to the hand in order to plan an appropriate reach. This sensorimotor transformation requires that we account for the orientation of each connected structure between the eye and hand-orientation of the eye relative to the head, orientation of the lower arm relative to the upper arm, and so on (Biguer, Jeannerod, & Prablanc, 1985;Karnath, 1997). Structurally, the trunk is the hub to which our head, arms, and legs are flexibly attached. As a result, trunk orientation influences sensorimotor planning for many typical actions and should therefore affect the distribution of spatial attention.The trunk is often aligned with behaviorally important regions of space. First, although we may turn our head and eyes to look in other directions, we usually move in the direction in which the trunk points. The direction of attention toward the path of motion helps us to avoid collisions when locomoting through the environment. A trunk orientation bias for attention would literally help University of Denver, Denver, ColoradoOur trunks influence where we perform actions in space. Thus, trunk direction may define a region of space that is accorded special treatment by the attention system. We investigated conditions under which a trunk orientation bias for attention might be relevant for healthy adults. Three experiments compared visual detection performance for participants standing and walking on a treadmill. Together, the experiments disambiguate the relative contributions of motor activity, motor load, and cognitive load on ...

show abstract

Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: alternatives to a resource-based account

Cited by 74 publications

References 31 publications

The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity.

The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity.

Distorted estimates of implicit and explicit learning in applications of the process-dissociation procedure to the SRT task

Walking reveals trunk orientation bias for visual attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About