Limits...
Data-driven sequence learning or search: What are the prerequisites for the generation of explicit sequence knowledge?

Schwager S, Rünger D, Gaschler R, Frensch PA - Adv Cogn Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: First, a sequence representation may become explicit when its strength reaches a certain level (Cleeremans, 2006), and secondly, explicit knowledge may emerge as the result of a search process that is triggered by unexpected events that occur during task processing and require an explanation (the unexpected-event hypothesis; Haider & Frensch, 2009).Rather sequence detection turned out to be more likely when participants were shifted to the fixed repeating sequence after training than when practicing one and the same fixed sequence without interruption.The behavioral effects of representation strength appear to be related to the effectiveness of unexpected changes in performance as triggers of a controlled search.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
In incidental sequence learning situations, there is often a number of participants who can report the task-inherent sequential regularity after training. Two kinds of mechanisms for the generation of this explicit knowledge have been proposed in the literature. First, a sequence representation may become explicit when its strength reaches a certain level (Cleeremans, 2006), and secondly, explicit knowledge may emerge as the result of a search process that is triggered by unexpected events that occur during task processing and require an explanation (the unexpected-event hypothesis; Haider & Frensch, 2009). Our study aimed at systematically exploring the contribution of both mechanisms to the generation of explicit sequence knowledge in an incidental learning situation. We varied the amount of specific sequence training and inserted unexpected events into a 6-choice serial reaction time task. Results support the unexpected-event view, as the generation of explicit sequence knowledge could not be predicted by the representation strength acquired through implicit sequence learning. Rather sequence detection turned out to be more likely when participants were shifted to the fixed repeating sequence after training than when practicing one and the same fixed sequence without interruption. The behavioral effects of representation strength appear to be related to the effectiveness of unexpected changes in performance as triggers of a controlled search.

No MeSH data available.


Percentage of participants categorized as “verbalizers” in the fiveexperimental groups with randomized and systematic training. In themanipulation phase, all groups received a systematic sequence which wasthe same as before in the SequenceC andSequenceRSI groups and a new one in theSequenceT group. The manipulation phase of the RSI groupsadditionally contained shortened RSI triplets. Error bars representestimated standard errors for percent values. RSI = response-stimulusinterval. C = control. T = transfer.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376888&req=5

Figure 1: Percentage of participants categorized as “verbalizers” in the fiveexperimental groups with randomized and systematic training. In themanipulation phase, all groups received a systematic sequence which wasthe same as before in the SequenceC andSequenceRSI groups and a new one in theSequenceT group. The manipulation phase of the RSI groupsadditionally contained shortened RSI triplets. Error bars representestimated standard errors for percent values. RSI = response-stimulusinterval. C = control. T = transfer.

Mentions: The proportion of verbalizers was 20.3% in the RandomC condition,21.6% in the RandomRSI condition, 30.4% in the SequenceCcondition, 35.7% in the SequenceRSI condition, and 38.6% in theSequenceT condition (see Figure1). Before turning to the four conditions that crossed the factorsRSI and sequence training, we evaluated the SequenceT condition.Participants in this condition outperformed participants in the other conditionsnumerically. First, from the standpoint that representation strength accumulatesfor a specific systematic sequence until it becomes verbalizable (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002), theRandomC condition can serve as a baseline. Participants in theSequenceT and the RandomC condition received the sameamount of training with the specific sequence for which reportable knowledge wasassessed. The overall number of verbalizers in the SequenceTcondition was significantly higher than in the RandomC condition,χ2(1, N = 103) = 4.17, p= .04. This result cannot be explained by the representational strength of thespecific sequence as participants in both conditions did not practice it beforethe manipulation phase. The amount of training with the sequence for whichverbal knowledge was assessed was exactly the same in both conditions. Thus, thetype of training (random or sequenced) affected the probability of detecting thetransfer sequence independently of its representation strength, possibly bycausing unexpected changes in performance.


Data-driven sequence learning or search: What are the prerequisites for the generation of explicit sequence knowledge?

Schwager S, Rünger D, Gaschler R, Frensch PA - Adv Cogn Psychol (2012)

Percentage of participants categorized as “verbalizers” in the fiveexperimental groups with randomized and systematic training. In themanipulation phase, all groups received a systematic sequence which wasthe same as before in the SequenceC andSequenceRSI groups and a new one in theSequenceT group. The manipulation phase of the RSI groupsadditionally contained shortened RSI triplets. Error bars representestimated standard errors for percent values. RSI = response-stimulusinterval. C = control. T = transfer.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376888&req=5

Figure 1: Percentage of participants categorized as “verbalizers” in the fiveexperimental groups with randomized and systematic training. In themanipulation phase, all groups received a systematic sequence which wasthe same as before in the SequenceC andSequenceRSI groups and a new one in theSequenceT group. The manipulation phase of the RSI groupsadditionally contained shortened RSI triplets. Error bars representestimated standard errors for percent values. RSI = response-stimulusinterval. C = control. T = transfer.
Mentions: The proportion of verbalizers was 20.3% in the RandomC condition,21.6% in the RandomRSI condition, 30.4% in the SequenceCcondition, 35.7% in the SequenceRSI condition, and 38.6% in theSequenceT condition (see Figure1). Before turning to the four conditions that crossed the factorsRSI and sequence training, we evaluated the SequenceT condition.Participants in this condition outperformed participants in the other conditionsnumerically. First, from the standpoint that representation strength accumulatesfor a specific systematic sequence until it becomes verbalizable (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002), theRandomC condition can serve as a baseline. Participants in theSequenceT and the RandomC condition received the sameamount of training with the specific sequence for which reportable knowledge wasassessed. The overall number of verbalizers in the SequenceTcondition was significantly higher than in the RandomC condition,χ2(1, N = 103) = 4.17, p= .04. This result cannot be explained by the representational strength of thespecific sequence as participants in both conditions did not practice it beforethe manipulation phase. The amount of training with the sequence for whichverbal knowledge was assessed was exactly the same in both conditions. Thus, thetype of training (random or sequenced) affected the probability of detecting thetransfer sequence independently of its representation strength, possibly bycausing unexpected changes in performance.

Bottom Line: First, a sequence representation may become explicit when its strength reaches a certain level (Cleeremans, 2006), and secondly, explicit knowledge may emerge as the result of a search process that is triggered by unexpected events that occur during task processing and require an explanation (the unexpected-event hypothesis; Haider & Frensch, 2009).Rather sequence detection turned out to be more likely when participants were shifted to the fixed repeating sequence after training than when practicing one and the same fixed sequence without interruption.The behavioral effects of representation strength appear to be related to the effectiveness of unexpected changes in performance as triggers of a controlled search.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
In incidental sequence learning situations, there is often a number of participants who can report the task-inherent sequential regularity after training. Two kinds of mechanisms for the generation of this explicit knowledge have been proposed in the literature. First, a sequence representation may become explicit when its strength reaches a certain level (Cleeremans, 2006), and secondly, explicit knowledge may emerge as the result of a search process that is triggered by unexpected events that occur during task processing and require an explanation (the unexpected-event hypothesis; Haider & Frensch, 2009). Our study aimed at systematically exploring the contribution of both mechanisms to the generation of explicit sequence knowledge in an incidental learning situation. We varied the amount of specific sequence training and inserted unexpected events into a 6-choice serial reaction time task. Results support the unexpected-event view, as the generation of explicit sequence knowledge could not be predicted by the representation strength acquired through implicit sequence learning. Rather sequence detection turned out to be more likely when participants were shifted to the fixed repeating sequence after training than when practicing one and the same fixed sequence without interruption. The behavioral effects of representation strength appear to be related to the effectiveness of unexpected changes in performance as triggers of a controlled search.

No MeSH data available.