Ruge Hannes, Jargow Janine, Sinning Eva, Fregni Sofia, Baumann Alexander Willy
Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 Mar 28:17470218241238164. doi: 10.1177/17470218241238164.
Many accounts of instruction-based learning assume that initial declarative representations are transformed into executable procedural ones, so as to enable instruction implementation. We tested the hypothesis that declarative-procedural transformation should be bound to a specific response modality and not transferable across different modalities. In Experiment 1, novel stimulus-response instructions had to be implemented either verbally or manually either once or three times. Modality-specific procedural encoding was probed via a subsequent implicit priming test. This involved the same stimuli but required a response that could be either compatible or incompatible with the originally instructed response using either the same or a different response modality. We found that procedural encoding was modality-specific as indicated by a stronger repetition-dependent increase of the compatibility effect when response modality was unchanged. Explicit test performance, serving as a marker of declarative encoding, was independent of modality transition and it was uncorrelated with implicit test performance. Unexpectedly, the implicit priming test also revealed a small yet significant transfer to the response modality that was previously overtly implemented, likely reflecting covert response "simulation". To examine if covertly simulated responding occurs even when instruction implementation is omitted altogether, we conducted Experiment 2. Subjects merely viewed novel stimulus-response instructions prior to testing. Again, we found evidence for procedural encoding of the non-implemented instructions. Moreover, a direct comparison of both experiments revealed higher test scores (both implicit and explicit) for previously non-implemented instructions than for previously implemented instructions. This calls for theoretical reconciliation with diverging previous study results.
许多基于指令学习的描述都假定，初始的陈述性表征会转化为可执行的程序性表征，以便能够实施指令。我们检验了这样一个假设，即陈述性-程序性转化应与特定的反应方式相关联，且不能在不同方式之间转移。在实验1中，新的刺激-反应指令必须通过言语或手动方式实施一次或三次。通过随后的内隐启动测试来探究特定方式的程序性编码。这涉及相同的刺激，但要求的反应可能与最初指令的反应兼容或不兼容，使用相同或不同的反应方式。我们发现，程序性编码是特定方式的，当反应方式不变时，兼容性效应的重复依赖性增强就表明了这一点。作为陈述性编码标志的外显测试表现与方式转换无关，且与内隐测试表现不相关。出乎意料的是，内隐启动测试还显示出向之前公开实施过的反应方式有少量但显著的转移，这可能反映了隐蔽的反应“模拟”。为了检验即使完全省略指令实施时是否也会发生隐蔽的模拟反应，我们进行了实验2。在测试之前，受试者只是观看新的刺激-反应指令。同样，我们发现了未实施指令的程序性编码的证据。此外，对两个实验的直接比较显示，对于之前未实施的指令，测试分数（内隐和外显）高于之前实施过的指令。这就需要与之前不同的研究结果进行理论上的协调。
