Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37726598›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Repetition costs in sequence chunking.

Rachel M Brown, Iring Koch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachel M BrownInstitute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstraße 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany. Rachel.Brown@psych.rwth-aachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4851-8429
Iring KochInstitute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstraße 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined how flexibly we plan sequences of actions when we switch between multiple action sequences. Mastering a sequential skill is assumed to involve integrating successive actions into groups known as chunks that can be efficiently planned and smoothly executed. Chunking is suggested by gains in planning efficiency for long compared to short action sequences following practice and learning associations between actions and perceptual outcomes. Less is understood about how efficiently we plan sequential chunks when we switch between multiple action sequences. Do we plan learned chunks less efficiently when we switch to a different action sequence? We examined this question by comparing the initiation and execution latencies of long versus short action sequences, performed from memory, when sequences switched or repeated across trials. Additionally, each action within the sequences generated predictable perceptual outcomes that were either spatially compatible or spatially incompatible with the action sequences. Results suggested repetition costs (instead of benefits) when performing long sequences. Repetition, as opposed to switching, prolonged initiation and increased the error rate of long compared to short sequences. We attribute these results to the flexible coordination of chunk planning and execution. Repetition may prolong advanced planning of long sequences in order to resolve conflict between multiple chunks, and switching may allow the planning of later chunks to be postponed until execution. We propose that the chunking of action sequences can both facilitate and interfere with action-switching performance.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceAdultExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMalePractice, PsychologicalSerial LearningYoung AdultAction-effect compatibilityAction switchingChunkingSequence lengthSequence production

Identifiers

PMID37726598
PMCPMC11061030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.