Learning concepts and applications

Psychology

Learning

Church, B.A., Mercado, E., Wisniewski, M.G., & Liu, E.H. (2012). Temporal Dynamics in Auditory Perceptual Learning: Impact of Sequencing and Incidental Learning.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

doi:10.1037/a0028647

This study looked at whether temporal dynamics and incidental as opposed to intentional nature of training are important. The researchers used the context of a birdsong rate discrimination task in order to carry out their research. They examined whether the sequencing of pretesting exposure to the stimuli mattered. It was found that progressive sequencing of stimuli during pre-exposure led to a more precise performance with the critical difficult dissimilarity and greater generalization to new contrasts in the task, compared with equally variable training in either a random or an anti-progressive order.

Research Question

Are temporal dynamics and the incidental vs. intentional nature of training important?

Methods

The researchers carried out two experiments. In experiment first one the researchers looked at people's ability to differentiate birdsongs that were played back at varying rates. There were four types of training that were looked at in order to dissociate the impact of progressive sequencing from augmented variability. These types included: progressive, constant, random, and anti-progressive. Half of the people in each group were trained on purpose on how to discriminate birdsong rates while the other half were exposed to the stimuli on an incidental basis. They were basically asked to judge whether or not they thought they could distinguish a particular birdsong while undergoing a memory test. This permitted the researchers to try and figure out whether the associations between the stimuli and responses were necessary in order to have a progressive advantage. In the second experiment, the researchers compared equally variable training conditions with three different sequences, while controlling the likelihood that the last training item was the stimuli used for the critical contrast. These sequences included: progressive, random, anti-progressive.

Results

The results of this study showed that the extent of sequencing in learning and progressive training advantages cannot be completely explained by direct associations between stimulus features and the equivalent responses. These findings were shown to be consistent with the idea of perceptual learning but not with a focus on stimulus variability.

Discussion

The results of this study support the idea that easy-to-hard sequencing presents an advantage in learning. When looking at all the sequencing types, progressive sequencing was shown to have the highest discrimination of the contrasts. It was also shown to have the best generalization to new contrasts even when participants are not trained to discriminate rate. Even though the study showed that participants experienced the exact same stimuli with matching stimulus variability and equal probabilities of having the last trained item are the critical contrast, progressive sequencing was found to be a better learning style than either anti-progressive or random sequencing. This shows that the advantage of progressive training comes from increased stimulus variability and not from other factors.