Tactile order memory: evidence for sequence learning phenomena found with other stimulus types

Abstract

We examine serial order memory for sequences of tactile stimuli and investigate whether

Hebb repetition effects for non-verbal visual sequences: determinants of sequence acquisition

“…The motor requirement to select the spatial locations at test in the same order as that at encoding may provide additional facilitative information for learning of the sequence (see also Fendrich, Healy, & Bourne, 1991). The same logic can be applied with respect to both digit (Hebb, 1961) and tactile (Johnson et al, 2016) recall, where the motor articulations required in outputting the Hebb sequence are also repeated. It is, therefore, possible that additional learning via the repeated motor response when retrieving the Hebb sequence may provide an additive benefit in learning the Hebb sequence.…”

“…Hebb, 1961;Hitch et al, 2009; albeit reduced in Page et al, 2013, Experiment 1;Melton, 1967), visuo-spatial (Couture & Tremblay, 2006), auditory-spatial (Parmentier et al, 2008), and tactile (Johnson et al, 2016) under conditions of full-stimulus-overlap. In contrast, Experiment 1 in the current series fails to demonstrate Hebb repetition learning for faces under those conditions.…”

“…To the extent that repetition of the motor response pattern underpins (at least partially) the Hebb repetition effect under conditions of full-stimulus-overlap (e.g. Couture & Tremblay, 2006;Hebb, 1961;Johnson et al, 2016;Parmentier et al, 2008), then we predict that the rate of learning for the Hebb sequence in the repeated motor response pattern condition will be steeper compared to that for the change-test-configuration (in the multilevel model, this would be demonstrated by the 3-way interaction between test configuration, sequence type, and epoch being a significant predictor). In Experiment 3a, we employ fullstimulus-overlap between the filler and Hebb sequences in order to investigate the extent to which the learning benefits of a repeated motor response compensate the diminution of learning associated with full-stimulus-overlap.…”

“…Couture & Tremblay, 2006;Johnson et al, 2013Johnson et al, , 2016Parmentier et al, 2008). However, it remains unclear as to whether the varying effects of stimulus overlap are stimulus-specific effects or due to variations in experimental methodologies.…”

“…Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;Baddeley, 2000), the Hebb repetition effect is not confined only to verbal stimuli. Indeed, it has been shown with, for example, visual (Horton, Hay, & Smyth, 2008;Page, Cumming, Norris, Hitch, & McNeil, 2006), visuo-spatial (Couture & Tremblay, 2006;Guérard, Saint-Aubin, Boucher, & Tremblay, 2011;Tremblay & Saint-Aubin, 2009;Turcotte, Gagnon, & Poirier, 2005), auditory-spatial (Parmentier, Maybery, Huitson & Jones, 2008;Lafond, Tremblay, & Parmentier, 2010), olfactory (Johnson, Cauchi, & Miles, 2013), and tactile (Johnson, Shaw, & Miles, 2016) stimuli. Furthermore, the range of stimuli demonstrating the Hebb repetition effect suggest that it is underpinned by a generalised characteristic of sequence learning, and not confined to storage in the phonological loop (Page et al, 2006).…”