There's something about a pattern: Choice between pattern and random sequences in implicit learning.

Three experiments examined the preference for pattern versus random sequences. In all experiments the elements composing the sequences were visual images presented sequentially on a touchscreen. Reinforcement was randomly programmed on .16 of the element presentations for each type of trial. For pattern sequences the elements occurred in the same order and at the same location on each presentation of the sequence. For random sequences the elements could occur in any order on a given trial. The experiments were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, termed forced-choice, subjects, male Silver Kings, were given either a pattern sequence or a random sequence to work on in a given trial. Subjects received this first phase until performance on each type of sequence was equated. In the second phase, termed free-choice, subjects could choose which of the two sequences to work on in each trial. Results indicated that although performance was equated between the two types of sequences in the forced-choice phase, when given the choice subjects selected the pattern sequence on 70 percent of the trials. This finding held in Experiments 1 and 2 although there were procedural differences between these two experiments. In Experiment 3 the reinforcement probability for random sequences was increased to be 50 percent higher than for pattern sequence. In this arrangement subjects chose random sequences on nearly 83 percent of the free-choice trials, indicating that the preference for pattern sequences was not intractable. Results suggest that the preference for pattern sequences that was observed when reinforcement was equated between the two types of sequences may have been the result of the added information concerning forthcoming element presentations that was available from pattern sequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A swap methodology applied to implicit sequence learning.

Two experiments used a methodology in which elements in a serially presented sequence of 5 elements were randomly reinforced during training. To assess what was learned, elements were systematically swapped with each other during testing. The usual outcome measures in implicit sequence learning of this type are either a random test in which elements are disarrayed, or pairwise tests in which subjects choose between two elements. Each of these methods possesses shortcomings. The random test is a blunt measure, whereas pairwise tests disrupt the usual flow of elements in a serial sequence. Pairwise tests also present the problem of how to reinforce subjects during testing in a way that doesn't violate the delivery of reinforcement on a random basis. The swaps methodology is more targeted in that only two elements exchange ordinal positions. The procedure is at once more precise than the standard random test and is less disruptive to the flow of an implicit sequence than are pairwise tests. Results of both experiments indicated that the swaps manipulation was successful in disrupting latencies. Regression analyses indicated that subjects learned something about the ordinal position of elements. The separate analysis of symbolic distance versus spatial distance in Experiment 2 provided evidence, but only provisional evidence, of a symbolic distance effect in implicit learning. (PsycINFO Database Record