Abstract

The process dissociation procedure (PDP) of implicit sequence learning states that the correct inclusion-task response contains the incorrect exclusion-task response. However, there has been no research to test the hypothesis. The current study used a single variable (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony SOA: 850 ms vs. 1350 ms) between-subjects design, with pre-task resting-state fMRI, to test and improve the classical PDP to the mutually exclusive theory (MET). (1) Behavioral data and neuroimaging data demonstrated that the classical PDP has not been validated. In the SOA = 850 ms group, the correct inclusion-task response was at chance, but the incorrect exclusion-task response occurred greater than chance. In the SOA = 850 ms group, the two responses were not correlated, but in the SOA = 1,350 ms group and putting the two groups together, the two responses were in contrast to each other. In each group, brain areas whose amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (ALFFs) in the resting-state related to the two responses were either completely different or opposite to one another. However, the results were perfectly consistent with the MET proposed by the present study which suggests that the correct inclusion-task response is equal to the correct exclusion-task response is equal to C + A1, and the incorrect exclusion-task response is equal to A2. C denotes the controlled response and A1 and A2 denote two different automatic responses. (2) The improved PDP was proposed to categorize the 12 kinds of triplets as delineating four knowledge types, namely non-acquisition of knowledge, uncontrollable knowledge, half-controllable knowledge, and controllable knowledge with the MET. ALFFs in the resting-state could predict the four knowledge types of the improved PDP among two groups. The participants’ control of the four knowledge types (degree of consciousness) gradually improved. Correspondingly, the brain areas in the resting-state positively related to the four knowledge types, gradually changed from the sensory and motor network to the somatic sensorimotor network, and then to the implicit learning network, and then to the consciousness network. The brain areas in the resting-state negatively related to the four knowledge types gradually changed from the consciousness network to the sensory and motor network. As SOA increased, the brain areas associated with almost all the four knowledge types changed. (3) The inhomogeneous hypothesis of the MET is best suited to interpret behavioral and neuroimaging data; it states that the same components among the four knowledge types are not homogeneous, and the same knowledge types are not homogeneous between the two SOA groups.

Highlights

  • The Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) in Implicit Sequence LearningConsciousness is fundamental to an individual’s survival, learning and development

  • The mutually exclusive theory (MET) proposed by the current study considered that a more logical relationship would be that the correct inclusion-task response does not contain the incorrect exclusion-task response in either behavioral or neuroimaging data, that is, the two responses are either independent or in opposition to each other

  • The classical PDP states that the correct inclusion-task response contains the incorrect exclusion-task response (Jacoby, 1991); that is, the correct inclusion-task response should be greater than, or equal to, the incorrect exclusion-task response, and they can be positively associated, negatively associated or not associated, which depends on the relationship between C and A

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) in Implicit Sequence LearningConsciousness is fundamental to an individual’s survival, learning and development. Implicit sequence learning is an important paradigm to reveal the mechanisms of consciousness emergence and change (Fu and Fu, 2006; Voss and Paller, 2009; Zhang et al, 2016). It involves a sequence rule in a certain dimension of stimulus such as its location, but the participants do not know the sequence rule and they are just asked to respond to the location of the stimulus; they perform an implicit sequence learning rather than an explicit sequence learning. How to define and measure the levels of consciousness is the premise of consciousness research in implicit sequence learning

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call