{"title":"练习过程中的在线预期线索会干扰有意和偶然的序列学习。","authors":"Stephan F Dahm, Daniel Krause","doi":"10.1080/00222895.2024.2369183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the Serial Reaction Time Task, participants respond to several stimuli usually being unaware that the stimuli follow a predefined sequence while still learning the sequence. In the present study, we aimed to clearly separate explicit intentional learning from implicit incidental learning by either informing participants about all details of the sequence or not informing participants about the existence of the sequence. Further, we explored the influence of anticipatory cues during practice while anticipatory cues were either presented (extrinsically triggered anticipation) or not presented (self-reliant intrinsic anticipation). Participants were tested before and after practice in the Practice Sequence and a Control Sequence. To test automatization, tests were performed in Single-Task and Dual-Task Blocks. Results showed that after learning with explicit instructions, participants memorized the sequence more deeply and executed the sequence faster than after learning without explicit instructions. Further, by learning with anticipatory cues, participants memorized the sequence less deeply and executed the sequence slower than by learning without anticipatory cues. Unexpectedly, automatization was sequence-unspecific and independent of the practice conditions. In conclusion, detailed explicit prior information about the sequence facilitates sequence learning while anticipatory online cues during practice hamper sequence learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":50125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Motor Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Anticipatory Cues During Practice Disrupt Intentional and Incidental Sequence Learning.\",\"authors\":\"Stephan F Dahm, Daniel Krause\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00222895.2024.2369183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the Serial Reaction Time Task, participants respond to several stimuli usually being unaware that the stimuli follow a predefined sequence while still learning the sequence. In the present study, we aimed to clearly separate explicit intentional learning from implicit incidental learning by either informing participants about all details of the sequence or not informing participants about the existence of the sequence. Further, we explored the influence of anticipatory cues during practice while anticipatory cues were either presented (extrinsically triggered anticipation) or not presented (self-reliant intrinsic anticipation). Participants were tested before and after practice in the Practice Sequence and a Control Sequence. To test automatization, tests were performed in Single-Task and Dual-Task Blocks. Results showed that after learning with explicit instructions, participants memorized the sequence more deeply and executed the sequence faster than after learning without explicit instructions. Further, by learning with anticipatory cues, participants memorized the sequence less deeply and executed the sequence slower than by learning without anticipatory cues. Unexpectedly, automatization was sequence-unspecific and independent of the practice conditions. In conclusion, detailed explicit prior information about the sequence facilitates sequence learning while anticipatory online cues during practice hamper sequence learning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Motor Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Motor Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2024.2369183\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Motor Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2024.2369183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Online Anticipatory Cues During Practice Disrupt Intentional and Incidental Sequence Learning.
In the Serial Reaction Time Task, participants respond to several stimuli usually being unaware that the stimuli follow a predefined sequence while still learning the sequence. In the present study, we aimed to clearly separate explicit intentional learning from implicit incidental learning by either informing participants about all details of the sequence or not informing participants about the existence of the sequence. Further, we explored the influence of anticipatory cues during practice while anticipatory cues were either presented (extrinsically triggered anticipation) or not presented (self-reliant intrinsic anticipation). Participants were tested before and after practice in the Practice Sequence and a Control Sequence. To test automatization, tests were performed in Single-Task and Dual-Task Blocks. Results showed that after learning with explicit instructions, participants memorized the sequence more deeply and executed the sequence faster than after learning without explicit instructions. Further, by learning with anticipatory cues, participants memorized the sequence less deeply and executed the sequence slower than by learning without anticipatory cues. Unexpectedly, automatization was sequence-unspecific and independent of the practice conditions. In conclusion, detailed explicit prior information about the sequence facilitates sequence learning while anticipatory online cues during practice hamper sequence learning.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Motor Behavior, a multidisciplinary journal of movement neuroscience, publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of motor control. Articles from different disciplinary perspectives and levels of analysis are encouraged, including neurophysiological, biomechanical, electrophysiological, psychological, mathematical and physical, and clinical approaches. Applied studies are acceptable only to the extent that they provide a significant contribution to a basic issue in motor control. Of special interest to the journal are those articles that attempt to bridge insights from different disciplinary perspectives to infer processes underlying motor control. Those approaches may embrace postural, locomotive, and manipulative aspects of motor functions, as well as coordination of speech articulators and eye movements. Articles dealing with analytical techniques and mathematical modeling are welcome.