Skip to main content
Log in

Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task

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

Abstract

This study examined whether skill in the discrete sequence production task involves, apart from the typical effector-independent component, an effector-dependent component. To that end, 12 participants practiced two 5-key sequences, each for 1,060 trials. One group practiced with three fingers of one hand, the other group with three fingers of two hands. In a subsequent test phase, participants in both groups executed the same sequences and two new sequences with the hand configuration they had used during practice, and with the hand configuration of the other group. The results provide support for an effector-dependent component in that both groups performed the practiced sequences faster with the hand configuration they had used during practice than with the hand configuration that was new to them. In addition, the unpracticed hand configuration performed the practiced sequences faster than the new sequence, which demonstrated the effector-independent component.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cohen, A., Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp, J., & Jahn, P. (2003). Lexical, conceptual and motor information in memory for action phrases: a multi-system account. Acta Psychologica, 113, 147–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. R. (1987). Timing of skilled motor performance: Test of the proportional duration model. Psychological Review, 94, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. R., Larochelle, S., & Grudin, J. T. (1988). Lexical, sublexical, and peripheral effects in skilled typewriting. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 524–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottsdanker, R., Perkins, T., & Aftab, J. (1986). Studying reaction time with nonaging intervals: An effective procedure. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 287–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420–9428.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H. (1988). Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comments on Gentner. Psychological Review, 95, 552–557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, R. E. (1974). Asymmetry of bilateral transfer. American Journal of Psychology, 87, 667–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. I. (1995). The organization of action sequences: Evidence from a relearning task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 179–192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karni, A., Meyer, G., Rey-Hipolito, C., Jezzard, P., Adams, M. M., Turner, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1998). The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 861–868.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, S. W., Jennings, P., Jones, S., Caulton, D., & Cohen, A. (1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. D., & Minifie, F. D. (1977). Coarticulation in recent speech production models. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lindemann, P. G., & Wright, C. E. (1998). Skill acquisition and plans for actions: Learning to write with your other hand. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), Methods, models, and conceptual issues. An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 4 (pp. 523–584). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Park, J.-H., & Shea, C. H. (2003). Effect of practice on effector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 33–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Leone, A., Grafman, J., & Hallett, M. (1994). Modulation of cortical motor output maps during development of implicit and explicit knowledge. Science, 263, 1286–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Povel, D. J. & Collard, R. (1982). Structural factors in patterned finger tapping. Acta Psychologica, 52, 107–123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Restle, F. (1970). Theory of serial pattern learning: Structural trees. Psychological Review, 77, 481–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. A., Kenny, S. B., & Derr, M. A. (1983). Hierarchical control of rapid movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 86–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rüsseler, J., & Rösler, F. (2000). Implicit and explicit learning of event sequences: Evidence for distinct coding of perceptual and motor representations. Acta Psychologica, 104, 45–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning. A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

  • Schmidt, R. A., Heuer, H., Ghodsian, D., & Young, D. E. (1998). Generalized motor programs and units of action in bimanual coordination. In M. L. Latash (Ed.), Progress in motor control, Vol.1, Bernstein's traditions in movement studies (pp. 329–360). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

  • Schneider, W., Zuccolotto, A., & Tirone, S. T. (1993). Time-stamping computer events to report 1-msec accuracy of events in the Micro Experimental Laboratory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 276–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segalowitz, S. J., & Graves, R. E. (1990). Suitability of the IBM XT, AT, and PS/2 keyboard, mouse, and game port as response devices in reaction time paradigms. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 283–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and Performance V (pp. 157–167). New York: Academic Press.

  • Squire, L. R., Knowlton, B., & Musen, G. (1993). The structure and organization of memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 453–495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press.

  • Van Mier, H., & Hulstijn, W. (1993). The effects of motor complexity and practice on initiation time in writing and drawing. Acta Psychologica, 84, 231–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B. (1996). Buffer loading and chunking in sequential keypressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 544–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multi-stage model of practice in a sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B. (2003). Processing modes and parallel processors in producing familiar keying sequences. Psychological Research, 67, 106–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B. (in press). The effect of sequence length on execution familiar keying sequences: Lasting segmentation and preparation? Journal of Motor Behavior.

  • Verwey, W. B., & Eikelboom, T. (2003). Lasting hierarchical control in a sequential keying task: A structural limitation of segment length? Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 171–181.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B., 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 

  • Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Willem B. Verwey wishes to thank Charlie Shea for the inspiring discussions on these matters during his stay at Texas A&M University, Asher Cohen, Tim Lee, and Sander Los for their insightful comments, and Petra Wallmeyer for assistance in running and analyzing the experiment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Willem B. Verwey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verwey, W.B., Wright, D.L. Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task. Psychological Research 68, 64–70 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0144-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0144-7

Keywords

Navigation