Visual context does not promote concurrent sequence learning

Abstract

Concurrent sequence learning (CSL) of two or more sequences refers to the concurrent maintenance, in memory, of the two or more sequence representations. Research using the serial reaction time task has established that CSL is possible when the different sequences involve different dimensions (e.g., visuospatial locations versus manual keypresses). Recently some studies have suggested that visual context can promote CSL if the different sequences are embedded in different visual contexts. The results of these studies have been difficult to interpret because of various limitations. Addressing the limitations, the current study suggests that visual context does not promote CSL and that CSL may not be possible when the different sequences involve the same elements (i.e., the same target locations, response keys and effectors).

Keywords:

• Concurrent sequence learning
• Implicit sequence learning
• Serial reaction time task
• Visual context

This research was supported by funding from Morehead State University's Research and Creative Productions Committee.

This research was supported by funding from Morehead State University's Research and Creative Productions Committee.

Notes

¹ CSL is not limited to situations where the two or more sequences are presented simultaneously. For example, if two sequences, A and B, are learned in the temporal order A B, and there still exists a representation of A after learning B, then this would be a case of CSL because there would be concurrent representations of A and B. However, if learning B replaces A's representation, then this would not be a case of CSL.

² The authors reported a mean learning effect of 12 ms in Experiment 1 with t(39) = 0.969 and a mean learning effect of 27 ms in Experiment 3 with t(39) = 3.12. Using these values and the formula for a single-sample t-test, I computed the variance of each sample and then performed a between-subjects t-test comparing the two learning effects. The difference of 15 ms was not significant, t(78) = 0.993, p = .324.

³ For sequences of target locations such as those in the present study, learning (i.e., L—H) asymptotes after two or three sessions of training (Remillard, 2008a, Experiment 1; Remillard & Clark, 2001, Experiment 4).

⁴ Abrahamse & Verwey (2008) produced evidence that location markers may become associated with a sequence's representation. The location markers in that study differed from those in the present study. In the Abrahamse & Verwey study, one display consisted of a row of 4 boxes and the other display consisted of a row of 4 triangles with triangles marking locations 1 and 3 pointed upward and triangles marking locations 2 and 4 pointed downward. Thus the two displays differed with respect to symmetry about the vertical axis and to perceptual grouping (e.g., triangles 1 and 3 being grouped together and triangles 2 and 4 being grouped together). There were no such differences in the present study. Also, the target filled a location marker in the Abrahamse & Verwey study, whereas the target appeared above a location marker in the present study. Perhaps using location markers similar to those of Abrahamse & Verwey might promote CSL.

⁵ The visual context in D'Angelo et al. (2014) dictated which response hand to use. Thus visual context was task-relevant, unlike in the present study. If visual context did in fact promote CSL in the D'Angelo et al. study, then perhaps the reason was the task-relevancy of the visual context.