Abstract
Introduction. The effect of interference can help identify essential characteristics of the process of acquiring new knowledge. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence on the use of the effect of interference to dissociate explicit and implicit learning. We tested the hypothesis that the effect of interference arising in response to the Stroop test stimuli reduces the efficiency of explicit sequence learning and does not significantly affect implicit sequence learning.
Methods. A sample of 80 respondents took part in this study (mean age = 22.7 years). In the experiment, we used the serial reaction time tasks, when subjects were instructed to respond quickly and accurately to the sequences of stimuli. Some subjects (n = 40) viewed series of colour names written in congruent (corresponding) font colours; others (n = 40) viewed series of colour names written in incongruent (non-corresponding) font colours (Stroop stimuli). The subjects were asked to respond to font colours, without reading words. To identify explicit sequence learning, we used the recognition test.
Results. We found a significant sequence learning effect among the subjects who performed the task under congruent and incongruent conditions. Meanwhile, all subjects demonstrated a low level of explicit sequence learning (less than 51.9 % of correct responses in the recognition test). We discovered that implicit sequence learning eliminates the effect of interference (a delay in response time to incongruent stimuli).
Discussion. The results confirmed the assumption that the effect of interference does not reduce the efficiency of implicit sequence learning. The absence of significant differences between the groups that responded to congruent and incongruent stimuli makes it impossible to fully evaluate the impact of interference on explicit sequence learning. In general, the findings from this study speak in favour of the fact that the effect of interference impedes the explication of the sequence structure.
References
Агафонов, А. Ю. (2007). Когнитивная психомеханика сознания или как сознание неосознанно принимает решение об осознавании. Самара: Бахрах-М.
Агафонов, А. Ю., Бурмистров, С. Н., Козлов, Д. Д. и Крюкова, А. П. (2018). Имплицитное выучивание комбинированных последовательностей. Интеграция образования, 22(2), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.091.022.201802.339-352
Аллахвердов, В. М. и Аллахвердов, М. В. (2014). Феномен Струпа: интерференция как логический парадокс. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 16. Психология. Педагогика, 4, 90–102.
Бурмистров, С. Н., Агафонов, А. Ю., Козлов, Д. Д. и Крюкова, А. П. (2016, июнь). Эффекты переноса и интерференции в имплицитном научении (на материале искусственных грамматик). В Ю. И. Александров, К. В. Анохин (ред.), Седьмая международная конференция по когнитивной науке: тезисы докладов (с. 184–185). Светлогорск: Институт психологии РАН.
Бурмистров, С. Н., Крюкова, А. П. и Агафонова, С. В. (2017). Эксплицитные и имплицитные процессы: эффекты интерференции при решении задач разного типа. Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук. Социальные, гуманитарные, медико-биологические науки, 19(2), 33–37.
Созинов, А. А., Крылов, А. К. и Александров, Ю. И. (2013). Эффект интерференции в изучении психологических структур. Экспериментальная психология, 6(1), 5–47.
Abrahamse, E. L., van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Verwey, W. B., Szumska, I., & Jaśkowski, P. (2012). Redundant sensory information does not enhance sequence learning in the serial reaction time task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0108-y
Cleeremans, A., Allakhverdov, V., & Kuvaldina, M. (Eds.). (2019). Implicit learning: 50 years on. Routledge.
Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(8), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01202-9
Cock, J., & Meier, B. (2007). Incidental task sequence learning: Perceptual rather than conceptual? Psychological Research, 71, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0005-7
Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17
Deroost, N., Vandenbossche, J., Zeischka, P., Coomans, D., & Soetens, E. (2012). Cognitive control: A role for implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1243–1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027633
Frensch, P. A., & Miner, C. S. (1994). Effects of presentation rate and individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202765
Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.567
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 task. Psychological Research, 61, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050015
Haider, H., Eichler, A., & Lange, T. (2011). An old problem: How can we distinguish between conscious and unconscious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task? Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.021
Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (1996). Secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 59, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01792433
Hsiao, A. T., & Reber, A. S. (2001). The dual-task SRT procedure: Fine-tuning the timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 336–342. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196170
Huang, H.-X., Zhang, J.-X., Liu, D.-Z., Li, Y.-L., & Wang, P. (2014). Implicit sequence learning of background and goal information under double dimensions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2989–2993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.694
Janacsek, K., & Nemeth, D. (2012). Predicting the future: From implicit learning to consolidation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.012
Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.316
Kline, L. W. (1921). An experimental study of associative inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(4), 270–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071479
Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior; the Hixon Symposium (pp. 112–146). Wiley.
Meier, B., & Cock, J. (2010). Are correlated streams of information necessary for implicit sequence learning? Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.001
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M.-A. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.785
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna.
Rah, S. Ky., 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212986
RStudio Team (2016). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA.
Russeler, J., Münte, T. F., & Rösler, F. (2002). Influence of stimulus distance in implicit learning of spatial and nonspatial event sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(3), 973–987. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.973
Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00419680
Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2012). Generalized lessons about sequence learning from the study of the serial reaction time task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 165–178.
Shanks, D. R., & Johnstone, T. (1998). Implicit knowledge in sequential learning tasks. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 533–572). Sage Publications, Inc.
Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.674
Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15
Waldron, E. M., & Ashby, F. G. (2001). The effects of concurrent task interference on category learning: Evidence for multiple category learning systems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196154
Weiermann, B., & Meier, B. (2012). Implicit task sequence learning with auditory stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.653339
Weiermann, B., Cock, J., & Meier, B. (2010). What matters in implicit task sequence learning: Perceptual stimulus features, task sets, or correlated streams of information? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1492–1509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021038
Willingham, D. B., Greeley, T., & Bardone, A. M. (1993). Dissociation in a serial response time task using a recognition measure: Comment on Perruchet and Amorim (1992). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1424–1430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1424
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Burmistrov S. N., Agafonov A. Yu., Fomicheva A. D., Shilov Yu. E.