Timing of Tone Presentation Does Alter Training Performance but Not Retention Performance of a Point-To-Point Sequence Task

Arend W. A. Van Gemmert

School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, HP Long Fieldhouse, Baton Rouge, LA, USA..

DOI: 10.4236/ape.2012.23015                

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether the timing of presentation of tones while practicing a serial reaction time task affects retention. Design: Thirty-eight young adults practiced 4 different 12-sequence aiming tasks. There was one control condition without a tone and three experimental conditions in which a tone was presented; i.e., a tone could appear before the next target onset, at the next target onset, or after the next target onset. Sequence learning for each condition was assessed with a retention block in which no tones were presented. Performance changes as compared to the control condition were analyzed to assess if acquisition and/or learning was affected by the presentation of the tones. Results: Tone condition affected mainly reaction time. It was shown that if a tone was presented 150 ms before displaying the next target in the sequence the reaction time of the aiming movement decreased significantly. Furthermore, it was shown that tone onset 150 ms before target presentation and tone onset at target presentation resulted in a benefit during acquisition after block 5 and 6 respectively. However, the benefit disappeared during retention, because none of the tone conditions showed differential performance as compared to the control condition. Conclusions: Timing of tones affects the acquisition of serial reaction time tasks, but it does not alter learning. It is suggested that this pattern of findings supports the notion that tones result in a non-specific activation of the motor system, which affect immediate performance but not learning.

Keywords

Motor Learning; Activation; Sequence Learning; Serial Reaction Time (SRT) Task

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bullemer, P., & Nissen, M. J. (1990). Attentional orienting in the expression of procedural knowledge. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 505-505.
[2]	Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 16, 17-30. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17
[3]	Ketcham, C. J., Seidler, R. D., Van Gemmert, A. W., & Stelmach, G. E. (2002). Age-related kinematic differences as influenced by task difficulty, targetsize, and movement amplitude. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 57, 54-64. doi:10.1093/geronb/57.1.P54
[4]	McDowall, J., Lustig, A., & Parkin, G. (1995). Indirect learning of event sequences: The effects of divided attention and stimulus continuity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 49, 415-436. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.49.4.415
[5]	Meulenbroek, R. G., & Van Galen, G. P. (1988). Foreperiod duration and the analysis of motor stages in a line-drawing task. Acta Psychologica, 69, 19-34. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(88)90027-3
[6]	Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning—Evidence from performance-measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1-32. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
[7]	Richard, M. V., Clegg, B. A., & Seger, C. A. (2009). Implicit motor sequence learning is not represented purely in response locations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1516-1522. doi:10.1080/17470210902732130
[8]	Romero, D. H., Van Gemmert, A. W., Adler, C. H., Bekkering, H., & Stelmach, G. E. (2003). Time delays prior to movement alter the drawing kinematics of elderly adults. Human Movement Science, 22, 207-220. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(02)00160-4
[9]	Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 138, 270-290. doi:10.1037/a0015378
[10]	Song, S., Howard, J. H., & Howard, D. V. (2008). Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task. Experimental Brain Research, 189, 145-158. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1411-z
[11]	Stadler, M. A. (1995). Role of attention implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 2, 674- 685. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.674
[12]	Tucha, O., Mecklinger, L., Walitza, S., & Lange, K. W. (2006). Attention and movement execution during handwriting. Human Movement Science, 25, 536-552. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2006.06.002
[13]	Van Gemmert, A. W., & Van Galen, G. P. (1994). Effects of a seconddary, auditory task on graphic aiming movements. In C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette, & A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 421-439). Paris: Europia.
[14]	Van Gemmert, A. W., & Van Galen, G. P. (1997). Stress, neuromotor noise, and human performance: A theoretical perspective. The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1299-1313. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1299
[15]	Van Gemmert, A. W., & Van Galen, G. P. (1998). Auditory stress effects on preparation and execution of graphical aiming: A test of the neuromotor noise concept. Acta Psychologica, 98, 81-101. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00049-8