Goal Based Episodic Processing in Implicit Learning

Authors: Peter A. Bibby

Abstract:

Research has suggested that implicit learning tasks may rely on episodic processing to generate above chance performance on the standard classification tasks. The current research examines the invariant features task (McGeorge and Burton, 1990) and argues that such episodic processing is indeed important. The results of the experiment suggest that both rejection and similarity strategies are used by participants in this task to simultaneously reject unfamiliar items and to accept (falsely) familiar items. Primarily these decisions are based on the presence of low or high frequency goal based features of the stimuli presented in the incidental learning phase. It is proposed that a goal based analysis of the incidental learning task provides a simple step in understanding which features of the episodic processing are most important for explaining the match between incidental, implicit learning and test performance.

Keywords: Episodic processing, incidental learning, implicitlearning, invariant learning.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1081431

References:

[1] Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 855-863.
[2] Brooks, L. R. (1978). Non-analytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and concepts (pp. 169-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[3] Brooks, L.R., and Vokey, J.R. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 12 0, 316-323. Dienes, Z., Broadbent, D., and Berry, D. (1991). Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17(5), 875-887.
[4] Gomez, R.L., and Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1994). What is learned from artificial grammars? Transfer tests of simple association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 396- 410.
[5] Knowlton, B.J., and Squire, L.R. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 79-91.
[6] Mathews, R., Buss, R., Stanley, W., Blancard-Fields, F., Cho, J., and Druhan, B. (1989). The role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15(6), 1083-1100.
[7] Perruchet, P., and Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(3), 264-275.
[8] Servan-Schreiber, E., and Anderson, J.R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 592-608.
[9] Vokey, J.R., and Brook s, L.R. (1992). The salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 328-344.
[10] McGeorge, P., and Burton, M.A. (1990). Semantic processing in an incidental learning task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A(3), 597-610.
[11] Wright, R. L., and Burton, M. A. (1995). Implicit learning of an invariant: Just say no. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A, 783-796.
[12] Churchill, E.F. and Gilmore, D.J. (1998). Selection through rejection: reconsidering the invariant learning paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 1-17.
[13] Higham, P. A., and Brooks, L. R. (1997). Learning the experimenter-s design: Tacit sensitivity to the structure of memory lists. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 199-215.
[14] Vokey, J.R. and Higham, P.A. (1999) Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 5, 787-788.
[15] Stadler, M., Warren, J., and Lesch, S. (2000). Is there cross format transfer in implicit invariance learning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(1), 235-245.
[16] Cock, J., Berry, D., and Gaffan, E. (1994). The role of similarity processing in an incidental learning task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 1015-1034.
[17] Whittlesea, B., and Dorken, M. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic processing account of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 122(2), 227-248.
[18] Whittlesea, B., and Wright, R. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: Acting adaptively without knowing the consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(1), 181-200.
[19] Wright, R.L., and Whittlesea, B.W.A. (1998). Implicit learning of complex structures: Active adaptation and selective processing in acquisition and application. Memory and Cognition, 26(2), 402-420.
[20] Kolers, P.A., and Roediger, H.L. (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 425-449.
[21] Roediger, H.L., III, Buckner, R., and McDermott, K.B. (1999). Components of processing. In J.K. Foster and M. Jelicic (Eds.), Memory: Systems, process, or function? (pp. 31-65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Roediger, H.L., III, Weldon, M.S., Stadler, M.L., and Riegler, G.L. (1992). Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: word fragment and word stem completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18 , 1251-1269.
[23] Huddy, V., and Burton, A.M. (2002). Generate and test: An alternative route to knowledge elicitation in an implicit learning task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1093-1107.