Skip to main content
Log in

Sequence learning and sequential effects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3A, B
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6A, B

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188–196.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies in serial choice-response tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 232–239.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., & Budescu, D. V. (1997). Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 603–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1992). Statistical structure and implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 318–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A., & Neely, C. B. (1997). Effects of sequence length and structure on implicit serial learning. Psychological Research, 60, 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Soetens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0163-4

Keywords

Navigation