Perceptual load improves the expression but not learning of relevant sequence information

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 84-91

  Deroost, Natacha ^a   Coomans, Daphné ^a   Soetens, Eric ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Attention; Implicit learning; Perceptual load; Sequence learning

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SERIAL LEARNING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 60749114479     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.84     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Cleeremans, A., Destrebeqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning; News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 406-1-16.
2. Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (1998). Implict sequence learning: The truth is in details. In M. A. Stadler, & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 323-364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 275-281.
4. Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 189-202.
5. Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006a). Spatial processing and perceptual sequence learning in SRT tasks. Experimental Psychology, 53, 16-30.
6. Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006b). Perceptual or motor learning in SRT tasks with complex sequence structures. Psychological Research, 70, 88-102.
7. Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006c). The role of response selection in sequence learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 449-156.
8. Deroost, N., Zeeuws, I., & Soetens, E. (2006). Effector-dependent and response location learning of probabilistic sequences in SRT tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 469-180.
9. Faul, R, Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
10. Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and abscence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 567-584.
11. Frensch, P. A., Lin, J., & Buchner, A. (1998). Learning versus behavioral expression of the learned: The effects of a secondary tone-counting task on implicit learning in the serial reaction time task. Psychological Research, 61, 83-98.
12. Frensch, P. A., Wenke, D., & Rünger, D. (1999). A secondary tone-counting task suppresses expression of knowledge in the serial reaction time task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 260-274.
13. Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 59, 119-133.
14. Hsiao, A. T., & Reber; A. S. (2001). The dual-task SRT procedure: Fine-tuning the timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 336-342.
15. Jiang, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1105-1124.
16. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 236-259.
17. Jiménez, L., & Vázquez, G. A. (2005). Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: Alternatives to a resource-based account. Psychological Research, 69, 352-369.
18. Koch, I. (2007). Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: Evidence from stimulus-response compatibility. Human Movement Science, 26, 257-274.
19. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339-354.
20. Nattkemper, D., & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98-112.
21. Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1-32.
22. Rah, S. K., Reber, A. S., & Hsiao, A. T. (2000). Another wrinkle on the dual-task SRT experiment: It's probably not dual-task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 309-313.
23. Reed, J., & Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 585-594.
24. Rowland, L. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2006a). Sequence learning and selection difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 287-299.
25. Rowland, L. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2006b). Attention modulates the learning of multiple contingencies. Psychonomic Bidlet?n & Review, 13, 643-648.
26. Remillard, G. (2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 518-597.
27. Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53-71.
28. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime, Version 1.1. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
29. Shanks, D. R. (2003). Attention and awareness in "implicit" sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 11-42). John Benjamins B.V.
30. Soetens, E., Melis, A., & Notebaert, W. (2004). Sequence learning and sequential effects. Psychological Research, 69, 124-137.
31. Stadler, M. A. (1995). The role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 674-685.
32. Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561-572.