Abstract
Is there a relation between working memory (WM) and incidental sequence learning? Nearly all of the earlier investigations in the role of WM capacity (WMC) in sequence learning suggest no correlations in incidental learning conditions. However, the theoretical view of WM and operationalization of WMC made strong progress in recent years. The current study related performance in a coordination and transformation task to sequence knowledge in a four-choice incidental deterministic serial reaction time (SRT) task and a subsequent free generation task. The response-to-stimulus interval (RSI) was varied between 0 ms and 300 ms. Our results show correlations between WMC and error rates in condition RSI 0 ms. For condition RSI 300 ms we found relations between WMC and sequence knowledge in the SRT task as well as between WMC and generation task performance. Theoretical implications of these findings for ongoing processes during sequence learning and retrieval of sequence knowledge are discussed.
Highlights
Everyday mental activities such as calculating, language comprehension and reasoning require a system that can temporally maintain, flexibly modify and access mental relational representations [1,2]
These results indicate that the higher the memory updating (MU) score and the higher the spatial short-term memory (SSTM) score, respectively, the higher is the difference of the mean Reaction times (RTs) of block 8 and 9 in condition response-to-stimulus interval (RSI) 300
We found a relation between working memory (WM) and an error indicator of sequence knowledge when there is no-RSI
Summary
Everyday mental activities such as calculating, language comprehension and reasoning require a system that can temporally maintain, flexibly modify and access mental relational representations [1,2]. Frensch and Miner proposed a theoretical framework for explicit (intentional) and implicit (incidental) sequence learning They assumed that explicit learning occurs only in the subset of LTM that is in the focus of attention and is achieved through active processing (e.g., hypothesis testing). When we argue that WM is needed to override automatic response tendencies during the transfer phase, i.e., when LTM representations of the training sequence compete with the new sequence structure for being retrieved we should find relations between WMC and sequence knowledge Evidence for this assumption is not found in the sequence learning literature for incidental single task conditions ([5,38,39]; the same pattern is found for probabilistic sequences, e.g., [40]). High WMC individuals should generate more sequence knowledge than low WMC individuals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
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