Abstract
In a serial reaction time (RT) task with a probabilistic stimulus sequence, the length of the response-to-stimulus interval (RSI) and the sequence complexity was manipulated to investigate the relationship between sequence learning and sequential effects in serial RT tasks. Sequential effects refer to the influence of previous stimulus presentations on the RT to the current stimulus. Sequence learning is stimulus-transition specific and is demonstrated as the difference between practiced and unpracticed sequences within an interpolated random block of trials. There is a clear parallel between sequence learning and specific changes in sequential effect in the short RSI conditions, suggesting that a common mechanism may lie at the basis of sequence learning and automatic facilitation, which is responsible for sequential effects at short RSI. Importantly, the changes in sequential effects accompanying sequence learning are the same as those observed with practice in random serial RT tasks, indicating that the learning process underlying sequence learning is the same as in random tasks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It may be argued that the particular grammar that is used allows participants to detect the absence of vertical movements on the left side of the display and ignore such movements on the right. This is, however, a typical aspect of sequence learning and creates the opportunity to detect constraints in the stimulus sequence. Such constraints are present in all sequence learning studies with first-order structure. For example, in the original Nissen and Bullemer (1987) study a fixed sequence was used (DBCACBDCBA). Here, participants may learn to ignore the left visual field (e.g., stimuli A and B) after an A stimulus.
References
Audley, R.J. (1973). Some observations on theories of choice reaction time: Tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and Performance IV (pp. 509–545). New York: Academic Press.
Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90–102.
Bertelson, P. (1963). S-R relationships and reaction times to new versus repeated signals in a serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 478–484.
Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218.
Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345–1362.
Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning: Connectionist models of sequence processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (1998). Implicit sequence learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 323–364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235–253.
Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.
Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202.
Dominey, P. F. (1998). Influences of temporal organization on sequence learning and transfer: Comments on Stadler (1995) and Curran and Keele (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 234–248.
Frensch, P. A., & Miner, C. S. (1994). Effects of presentation rate and individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 95–110.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188–196.
Kirby, N. H. (1976). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 567–577.
Kirby, N. H. (1980). Sequential effects in choice reaction time. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 129–172). London: Academic Press.
Kornblum, S. (1973). Sequential effects in choice reaction time: A tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 259–288). New York: Academic Press.
Laming, D. R. J. (1968). Information theory and choice-reaction times. London: Academic Press.
Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Bizot, E. (1988). Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 24–37.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.
Pashler, H., Baylis, G. (1991a). Procedural learning. I. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991b). Procedural learning. II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.
Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies in serial choice-response tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 232–239.
Rapoport, A., & Budescu, D. V. (1997). Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 603–617.
Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, W. (1996). MEL professional. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 547–568.
Soetens, E., Deboeck, M., & Hueting, J. (1984). Automatic aftereffects in two-choice reaction time: A mathematical representation of some concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 581–598.
Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 598–616.
Stadler, M. A. (1992). Statistical structure and implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 318–327.
Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.
Stadler, M. A., & Neely, C. B. (1997). Effects of sequence length and structure on implicit serial learning. Psychological Research, 60, 14–23.
Vervaeck, K. R., & Boer, L. C. (1980). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: subjective expectancy and automatic aftereffect at short response-stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 44, 175–190.
Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 65–72.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Wright, R. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: Acting adaptively without knowing the consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 181–200.
Willingham, D. B., Greenberg, A. R., & Thomas, R. C. (1997). Response-to-stimulus interval does not affect implicit motor sequence learning. Memory & Cognition, 25, 534–542.
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this article was supported by a grant from the National Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders, Belgium (FWO-VL, G.0059.96 N).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soetens, E., Melis, A. & Notebaert, W. Sequence learning and sequential effects. Psychological Research 69, 124–137 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0163-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0163-4