Skip to main content
Log in

Taking patterns for chunks: is there any evidence of chunk learning in continuous serial reaction-time tasks?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When exposed to a regular sequence, people learn to exploit its predictable structure. There have been two major ways of thinking about learning under these conditions: either as the acquisition of general statistical information about the transition probabilities displayed by the sequence or as a process of memorizing and using separate chunks that can later become progressively composed with extended practice. Even though chunk learning has been adopted by some theories of skill acquisition as their main building block, the evidence for chunk formation is scarce in some areas, and is especially so in the continuous serial reaction-time (SRT) task, which has become a major research tool in the study of implicit learning. This article presents a reappraisal, replication and extension of an experiment that stands so far as one of the few alleged demonstrations of chunk learning in the SRT task (Koch and Hoffmann, Psychological Res., 63:22–35, 2000). It shows that the effects which were taken as evidence for chunk learning can indeed be obtained before any systematic training and thus surely reflect a preexistent tendency rather than a learned outcome. Further analyses of the effects after extended practice confirm that this tendency remains essentially unchanged over continuous training unlike what could be expected from a chunk-based account of sequence learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Christiansen, M. H., Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Learning to segment speech using multiple cues: A connectionist model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 221–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning: A connectionist model of sequence processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 567–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inquisit 1.33 [Computer software]. (2003). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software L.L.C.

  • Jiménez, L., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Qualitative differences between implicit and explicit sequence learning. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 475–490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Philipp, A. M., & Gade, M. (2006). Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition. Psychological Science, 17, 346–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirementes of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. (2005). Statistical approaches to language acquisition and the self-organizing consciousness: A reversal of perspective. Psychological Research, 69, 316–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Gallego, J. (1997). A subjective unit formation account of implicit learning. In D. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning (pp. 124–161). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (2002). The self-organizing consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 297–388.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 233–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J., & Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 585–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, K., Kitaguchi, K., & Hikosaka, O. (2003). Chunking during human visuomotor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research, 152, 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W. (2007). Task-set inhibition in chunked task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (in press).

  • Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1993). Implicit learning: Questions inspired by Hebb (1961). Memory and Cognition 21, 819–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 674–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaquero, J. M. M., Jiménez, L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). The problem of reversals in assessing sequence learning with serial reaction time tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W., & Eikelboom, T. (2003). Evidence for lasting sequence segmentation in the discrete sequence-production task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 171–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W., Lammens, R., & Van Honk, J. (2002). On the role of the SMA in the discrete sequence production task: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1268–1276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia with grants BSO2003-05095, SEJ2005 25754-E and SEJ2006 27564-E. The author wishes to thank Gustavo Vázquez for his assistance in data collection, and Peter Frensch, Iring Koch, Pierre Perruchet and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Jiménez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jiménez, L. Taking patterns for chunks: is there any evidence of chunk learning in continuous serial reaction-time tasks?. Psychological Research 72, 387–396 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0121-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0121-7

Keywords

Navigation