Röttger Eva, Haider Hilde, Zhao Fang, Gaschler Robert
Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Str. 2, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Department of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Universitätsstr. 33, 58084, Hagen, Germany.
Psychol Res. 2019 Apr;83(3):526-543. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0920-4. Epub 2017 Sep 26.
One often replicated finding is that implicit sequence learning is hampered in dual-task situations. Thus, one crucial question has been whether implicit learning processes require attentional resources. Meanwhile, focusing exclusively on limited attentional resources might be considered as too unspecific. Overall, the focus lies now rather on the possibility that the impairment is due to interference coming along with (a) task integration (e.g., Schmidtke and Heuer in Psychol Res 60(1-2):53-71, 1997)-or with (b) parallel response selection (Schumacher and Schwarb in J Exp Psychol Gen 138(2):270-290, 2009). Yet, other explanations have also been put forward-and there is still no agreement. Our goal here is to contribute to this debate by testing several constraints that have been suggested in the literature within one single paradigm, originating by Schumacher and Schwarb (J Exp Psychol Gen 138(2):270-290, 2009). Therefore, we paired the same visual-manual serial reaction time task (SRTT; Nissen and Bullemer in Cogn Psychol 19(1):1-32, 1987) with different auditory-vocal tone-discrimination tasks across seven dual-task conditions. We manipulated (a) its relation to the SRTT and/or (b) the difficulty of response selection. The results suggest that task integration is indeed a crucial factor for implicit sequence learning: since the tone-task is a potential source of noisy patterns of covariation in a complex arrangement of task components, sequence learning is disrupted. In line with Rah, Reber, and Hsiao (Psychon Bull Rev 7(2):309-313, 2000), the usefulness (in terms of sequence learning) of task integration seems to depend on the predictive value of across-task stimulus and/or response events.
一个经常被重复验证的发现是，在双重任务情境中，内隐序列学习会受到阻碍。因此，一个关键问题一直是内隐学习过程是否需要注意力资源。与此同时，仅仅关注有限的注意力资源可能被认为过于宽泛。总体而言，现在的重点更多地在于这种损害可能是由于（a）任务整合（例如，施密特克和霍耶尔，《心理学研究》，1997年，第60卷第1 - 2期，第53 - 71页）——或者（b）并行反应选择（舒马赫和施瓦布，《实验心理学杂志：总论》，2009年，第138卷第2期，第270 - 290页）所带来的干扰。然而，也有人提出了其他解释——并且仍然没有达成共识。我们这里的目标是通过在一个单一范式中测试文献中提出的几个限制条件，为这场辩论做出贡献，该范式源自舒马赫和施瓦布（《实验心理学杂志：总论》，2009年，第138卷第2期，第270 - 290页）。因此，我们在七种双重任务条件下，将相同的视觉 - 手动序列反应时任务（SRTT；尼森和布勒默，《认知心理学》，1987年，第19卷第1期，第1 - 32页）与不同的听觉 - 发声音调辨别任务配对。我们操纵了（a）它与SRTT的关系和/或（b）反应选择的难度。结果表明，任务整合确实是内隐序列学习的一个关键因素：由于音调任务是在复杂的任务组件排列中协变噪声模式的一个潜在来源，序列学习就会受到干扰。与拉、雷伯和萧（《心理学通报与评论》，2000年，第7卷第2期，第309 - 313页）一致，任务整合（就序列学习而言）的有用性似乎取决于跨任务刺激和/或反应事件的预测价值。
