The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal learning

Abstract

How does learning the timing of actions influence our ability to learn the order of actions? A sequence of responses cued by spatial stimuli was learned in a serial reaction time task where the response-to-stimulus intervals (RSIs) were random, constant, or followed a fixed sequence. In this final sequenced-RSI condition, the response and RSI sequences were consistently matched in phase and could be integrated into a common sequence representation. The main result was that the response sequence was learned to a similar degree in all RSI training conditions, indicating that neither the predictability of RSIs nor the integration of the phase-matched response and timing sequences benefited learning of the response sequence. Nevertheless, temporal learning and integration speeded up performance without strengthening the representation of response order.

Implicit sequence learning and contextual cueing do not compete for central cognitive resources.

“…The author showed that participants learned simultaneously about each of these two sequences to the same extent as did two control groups that were exposed to a single sequence. Analogous effects have been found by arranging a sequence of locations together with a temporal sequence in the response-to-stimulus intervals (Shin, 2008;Shin & Ivry, 2002).…”

Implicit Learning and Acquisition of Music

“…Results showed implicit learning of the temporal structure without a correlated ordinal pattern in a single‐ but not multiple‐response SRT task. They argued that probabilistic uncertainty of an upcoming ordinal stimulus identity may explain the discrepancy (above) of why some previous studies (Miyawaki, 2006; O’Reilly et al., 2008; Shin, 2008; Shin & Ivry, 2002) had found no independent learning of temporal and ordinal patterns. Schultz et al.…”

Sequence Knowledge on <i>When</i> and <i>What</i> Supports Dual-Tasking

“…This “problem of serial order” (Lashley, 1951) can be approached from different perspectives. On the one hand, work on sequence learning (e.g., Schuck, Gaschler, & Frensch, 2012; Shin, 2008) and representations of serial order (e.g., Botvinick & Bylsma, 2005; Botvinick & Plaut, 2006) has dealt with representations and processes securing precision of serial output with respect to order and timing based on sequence knowledge. On the other hand, work on the response selection bottleneck (Pashler, 1994) has dealt with the constraints that avoid parallel selection of responses despite parallel activation – for instance, when multiple stimuli are presented and multiple responses are required within the same trial.…”

“…On the one hand, eyetracking work has revealed anticipatory processing (fixations to potential stimulus positions prior to stimulus onset) even with random sequences of stimulus positions (Marcus, Karatekin, & Markiewicz, 2006). On the other hand, anticipation of the time point of stimulus presentation (Shin, 2008) and response preparation (Bausenhart, Rolke, Hackley, & Ulrich, 2006) have been documented. This suggests that Task 2 processing might start prior to Stimulus 2 presentation.…”

“…This RT benefit is obtained even when participants do not become aware of the repeating sequence (Nissen & Bullemer, 1987; Schumacher & Schwarb, 2009). Participants can acquire the sequence of stimuli (Haider, Eberhardt, Esser, & Rose, 2014) of response locations (Willingham, Wells, Farrell, & Stemwedel, 2000) and of the sequence of delays between response and next stimulus (Shin, 2008). Thus, different aspects of upcoming task processing can be prepared for in advance.…”