scholarly journals Implicit sequence learning: Inter-stimulus interval and subjective experience

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gáspár Lukács ◽  
Katalin Huszár ◽  
Emese Hallgató
Keyword(s):  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Implicit Sequence Learning ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Inter Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus ◽  
Serial Reaction ◽  
The Difference

In this research of implicit sequence learning we examined the difference between two groups, using constant inter-stimulus interval (ISI, 770 ms) and the standard, constant response-stimulus interval (RSI, 170 ms) in the Alternating Serial Reaction Time (ASRT) task (Howard & Howard, 1997). Moreover, we examined the subjective experience of participants during the task with three short questions about three factors: boredom, anxiety, and whether the participant concentrated on accuracy or rather on speed. In case of constant response-stimulus interval, the inter-stimulus interval were shorter, the responses were faster, but there was no difference in accuracy or learning. In the case of constant inter-stimulus interval, we found a correlation between learning and accuracy, while this correlation was not present in the case of constant response-stimulus interval. The participants got increasingly bored, their anxiety did not change, but they were concentrating more and more on speed – this latter tendency was significantly diminished in the case of constant inter-stimulus interval. In respect of these factors we did not find any other difference between the two groups. In the case of constant response-stimulus interval we found a significant negative correlation between boredom and learning, while this correlation was not found in the case of constant inter-stimulus interval. No other correlations were found between learning and subjective factors.

Intertrial Effects of Same-Different Judgements

1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester E. Krueger ◽  
Ronald G. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Letter Pair ◽  
Preceding Trial ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Response Repetition ◽  
Stimulus Repetition ◽  
Repetition Effects ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus ◽  
Present Trial

Specific intertrial effects (repetition effects) and general intertrial effects (refractoriness or persisting attention to the preceding trial) were studied with the same-different judgment task, which dissociates the effects of response repetition and stimulus repetition. Response repetition alone did not facilitate performance. Stimulus repetition did aid performance, but mainly when accompanied by response repetition. Subjects tended to avoid the normal comparison process by using the (invalid!) “bypass rule” (Fletcher and Rabbitt, 1978): repeat the response if the stimulus or some aspect thereof (letter contents, size, position) is repeated from the preceding trial, otherwise change the response. As to general effects, partial refractoriness was evident at response execution, but not at earlier processing stages. Mean RT increased, but errors decreased, as the response-stimulus interval (RSI) between trials decreased. Presenting a new letter pair immediately after the preceding response produced a delay, but subjects used the waiting time, while the response system recovered or was redirected to the present trial, to improve the accuracy of their decision.

Reaction Time to a Second Stimulus as a Function of Intensity of the First Stimulus

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Channel Model ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Rapid Succession ◽  
Inter Stimulus Interval ◽  
Double Response ◽  
The Difference

Reaction time (RT) to the second of two stimuli presented in rapid succession was examined as a function of the intensity of the first stimulus (S1). It was found that the delay in RT2 was greater following a dim first stimulus than following a bright first stimulus. The magnitude of this increase corresponded to the difference in RTs to the two intensity levels of S1. These results support the prediction of a single channel model of response selection. Examination of mean first RTs revealed a general elevation in latency of RT. However, since this increase was not influenced by the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) or by the intensity of the second stimulus (S2), and since the same increase was found on “catch trials“ where no S2 was presented, this increase is considered to be a function of change in set in the double response situation.

scholarly journals Inhibition of Eye Movements Disrupts Spatial Sequence Learning

2021 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-228
Author(s):  
Srdan Medimorec ◽  
Petar Milin ◽  
Dagmar Divjak
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Implicit Sequence Learning ◽  
Restricted Movement ◽  
Motor Responses ◽  
Motor Processes ◽  
Relative Contribution ◽  
Serial Reaction

Abstract. Implicit sequence learning is an integral part of human experience, yet the nature of the mechanisms underlying this type of learning remains a matter of debate. In the current study, we provide a test for two accounts of implicit sequence learning, that is, one that highlights sequence learning in the absence of any motor responses (with suppressed eye movements) and one that highlights the relative contribution of the motor processes (i.e., eye movements) to learning. To adjudicate between these accounts and determine whether a motor response is a requisite process in sequence learning, we used anticipation measures to compare performance on the standard oculomotor serial reaction time (SRT) task and on a version of the SRT task where the eye movements were restricted during the learning phase. our results demonstrated an increased proportion of correct anticipations in the standard SRT task compared to the restricted-movement task.

Effects of Age and Practice on Attention and Stages of Information Processing Using CRT with Fixed and Variable Foreperiods

1988 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara L. Carlton ◽  
Max Vercruyssen ◽  
Joan M. McDowd ◽  
James E. Birren
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus Interval ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Response Stimulus ◽  
Effects Of Aging ◽  
Selection Stage

The results of previous investigations have found conflicting results on the locus of age-related slowing of reaction time using Additive Factors Method (Sternberg, 1969). This experiment was conducted to examine the differential effects of Additive Factors Method task manipulations using both fixed and variable foreperiod conditions with practice preceding a second day replication to quantify the interaction of these effects with skill. The results show that (1) practice is a major confounding for research involving RT tasks, (2) the locus of age effects may lie in the later response selection stage of processing, and (3) the effects of aging, practice and intra-task factors depend on the response-stimulus interval characterizing the RT task. This research has implications for improving research methodologies and understanding the nature of age-related slowing in central nervous system functions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document