On the specificity of sequential congruency effects in implicit learning of motor and perceptual sequences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals experience less interference from conflicting information following events that contain conflicting information. Recently, Jiménez, Lupiáñez, and Vaquero (2009) demonstrated that such adaptations to conflict occur even when the source of conflict arises from implicit knowledge of sequences. There is accumulating evidence that momentary changes in adaptations made in response to conflicting information are conflict-type specific (e.g., Funes, Lupiáñez, & Humphreys, 2010a), suggesting that there are multiple modes of control. The current study examined whether conflict-specific sequential congruency effects occur when the 2 sources of conflict are implicitly learned. Participants implicitly learned a motor sequence while simultaneously learning a perceptual sequence. In a first experiment, after learning the 2 orthogonal sequences, participants expressed knowledge of the 2 sequences independently of each other in a transfer phase. In Experiments 2 and 3, within each sequence, the presence of a single control trial disrupted the expression of this specific type of learning on the following trial. There was no evidence of cross-conflict modulations in the expression of sequence learning. The results suggest that the mechanisms involved in transient shifts in conflict-specific control, as reflected in sequential congruency effects, are also engaged when the source of conflict is implicit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".