An egocentric frame of reference in implicit motor sequence learning

Psychological Research

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 542-552

  Witt, Jessica K ^a   Ashe, James ^b   Willingham, Daniel T ^c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; EGO; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

ATTENTION; EGO; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 46349087839     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-007-0129-z     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Andersen, R. A., Snyder, L. H., Bradley, D. C., & Xing, J. (1997). Multimodal representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex and its use in planning movements. Annual Review of Neurosciences, 20, 303-330.
2. Bapi, R. S., Doya, K., & Harner, A. M. (2000). Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research, 132, 149-162.
3. Bischoff-Grethe, A., Goedert, K. M., Willingham, D. T., & Grafton, S. T. (2004). Neural substrates of response-based sequence learning using fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 127-138.
4. Buxbaum, L. J., & Coslett, H. B. (1997). Subtypes of optic ataxia: reframing the disconnection account. Neurocase, 3, 159-166.
5. 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.
6. Colby, C. L. (1998). Action-oriented spatial reference frames in cortex. Neuron, 20, 15-24.
7. Colby, C. L., & Goldberg, M. E. (1999). Space and attention in parietal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 22, 319-349.
8. Culham, J. C., & Kanwisher, N. G. (2001). Neuroimaging of cognitive functions in human parietal cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 157-163.
9. Fendrich, D. W., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. (1991). Long-term repetition effects for motoric and perceptual procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 137-151.
10. Gordon, J., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. (1994). Accuracy of planar reaching movements. I. Independence of direction and extent variability. Experimental Brain Research, 99, 97-111.
11. Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. I. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420-9428.
12. Hazeltine, E. (2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In W. H. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action (pp. 673-689). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Heyes, C. M., & Foster, C. L. (2002). Motor learning by observation: Evidence from a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 593-607.
14. Hikosaka, O., Nakahara, H., Rand, M. K., Sakai, K., Lu, X., Nakamura, K., et al. (1999). Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neuroscience, 22, 465-471.
15. Hoffman, J., Martin, C., & Schilling, A. (2003). Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions. Psychological Research, 67, 160-173.
16. Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A., & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1029-1039.
17. Japikse, K. C., Negash, S., Howard, J. H., & Howard, D. V. (2003). Intermanual transfer of procedural learning after extended practice of probabilistic sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 148, 38-49.
18. Keele, S. W., Jennings, P., Jones, S., Caulton, D., & Cohen, A. (1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17-30.
19. Kelly, S. W., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Learning complex sequences: No role for observation? Psychological Research, 65, 15-23.
20. Kelly, S. W., Burton, A. M., Riedel, B., & Lynch, E. (2003). Sequence learning by action and observation: Evidence for separate mechanisms. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 355-372.
21. Knee, R., Thomason, S., Ashe, J., & Willingham, D. T. (2007). The representation of explicit motor sequence knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35, 326-333.
22. Liu, T., Lungu, O. V., Waechter, T., Willingham, D. T., & Ashe, J. (2007). Frames of reference during implicit and explicit learning. Experimental Brain Research, 180, 273-280.
23. Moscovitch, M., & Behrmann, M. (1994). Coding of spatial information in the somatosensory system: Evidence from patients with neglect following parietal lobe damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 151-155.
24. Nattkemper, D., & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction time task. Psychological Research, 60, 98-112.
25. Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1-32.
26. Park, J., & Shea, C. (2003). Effect of practice on effector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 33-40.
27. Remillard, G. (2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 581-597.
28. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1997). Parietal cortex: from sight to action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 562-567.
29. Russeler, J., & Rosler, F. (2000). Implicit and explicit learning of event sequences: Evidence for distinct coding of perceptual and motor representations. Acta Psychologia, 104, 45-67.
30. Snyder, L. H., Grieve, K. L., Brotchie, P., & Andersen, R. A. (1998). Separate body- and world- referenced representations of visual space in parietal cortex. Nature, 394, 887-891.
31. Verwey, W. B., & Wright, D. (2004). Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task. Psychological Research, 68, 64-70.
32. Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. (2005). The serial RT task: Indications for components with different learning rates. Psychological Research, 69, 242-251.
33. Vindras, P., & Viviani, P. (1998). Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 569-591.
34. Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558-584.
35. Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561-572.
36. Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1047-1060.
37. Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366-375.
38. Witt, J. K., Ashe, J., & Willingham, D. T. (2007). No evidence for hand-centered frame of reference in early implicit motor learning. Unpublished raw data.
39. Ziessler, M. (1994). The impact of motor responses on serial-pattern learning. Psychological Research, 57, 30-41.
40. Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 595-613.