ArticlePsychological research2025
Understanding abstract knowledge structures in implicit perceptual sequence learning.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional approaches to studying perceptual sequence learning (SL) often employ adaptations of the classical serial reaction time task, albeit these tasks suffer from confounding factors such as (oculo)motor learning effects. Unlike motor SL, the extent to which pure perceptual SL can occur implicitly without (oculo)motor learning remains uncertain. We adapted a previously formulated task (Garvert et al., eLife, 6, 1-20, 2017) to isolate perceptual sequence learning, without the interference of (oculo)motor confounds, and to determine whether perceptual sequence learning can occur implicitly. Fifty participants judged whether each object appeared in its original or mirrored form, gradually improving performance based on feedback. Unbeknownst to participants, the succession of these objects followed a probabilistic sequence. A training phase consisting of 8 regular blocks was followed by a testing phase, where 5 random and 5 regular blocks were presented alternatingly. A force-choice recognition test probing knowledge about specific transitions in the task was also used to assess explicit knowledge. Our findings indicate robust perceptual SL effects, as indicated by slower reaction times (RTs) in random blocks than regular blocks. Notably, transitions between objects with higher communicability (i.e., a metric of objects' connectedness within the underlying grid) showed lower RTs in regular, but not random blocks. This indicates that perceptual SL in our task may rely on strategic cognitive processes in response to violations of expectation. Importantly, our results also demonstrate that explicit knowledge of the underlying structure did not influence perceptual SL in any way, suggesting that learning was driven by implicit knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40601083What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.