Please enter verification code
An Eye Movement Study on the Relationship Between Multiple Implicit Sequence Learning and Attention
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2018, Pages: 8-13
Received: Mar. 2, 2018; Accepted: Mar. 19, 2018; Published: Apr. 16, 2018
Views 2111      Downloads 133
Zhanglong Lu, College of Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
Xiaoyu Li, Zhengzhou Central Hospital, Zhengzhou, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between multiple implicit sequence learning and attention. A one-factor between-subjects experimental design was used, with attentional load (low vs. high) as between-subjects variable. Eye-movement technology was adopted, and saccadic reaction time was as dependent measure. Forty healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to high attentional load condition and low attentional load condition. The results showed that: (1) Saccadic reaction time in high attentional load condition was longer than low attentional load condition’s; (2) Both the primary sequence and the secondary sequence could be learned no matter whether in low attentional load condition or in high attentional load condition; (3) the sequence learning scores did not differ from primary sequence and secondary sequence. These findings suggest that there are no attentional limitations on the learning of multiple sequence learning.
Multiple Sequence Learning, Implicit Learning, Attention, Eye Movements
To cite this article
Zhanglong Lu, Xiaoyu Li, An Eye Movement Study on the Relationship Between Multiple Implicit Sequence Learning and Attention, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2018, pp. 8-13. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20180701.13
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1-32.
Deroost, N., Coomans, D., & Soetens, E. (2009). Perceptual Load Improves the Expression but not Learning of Relevant Sequence Information. Experimental Psychology, 56 (2), 84-91.
Franklin, M. S., Smallwood, J., Zedelius, C. M., Broadway, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2016). Unaware yet reliant on attention: Experience sampling reveals that mind–wandering impedes implicit learning. Psychon Bull Rev, 23: 223-229.
Jiménez, L, & Vázquez1, G. A. (2005). Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: Alternatives to a resource-based account. Psychological Research, 69 (5-6), 352-368.
Wierzchoń, M., Gaillard, V., Asanowicz, D., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Manipulating attentional load in sequence learning through random number generation. Advances in cognitive psychology, 8 (2), 179-195.
Shanks, D. R. (2003). Attention and awareness in implicit sequence learning. In Jiménez, L. Attention and implicit learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 11-42.
Shanks, D. R., Rowland, L. A., & Ranger, M. S. (2005). Attentional load and implicit sequence learning. Psychological Research, 69 (5-6), 369-382.
Lu, Z. L., Lv, Y., & Bai, X. J. (2011). Attention load has no effect on implicit sequence learning: an eye movement study. Studies of psychology and behavior, 9 (3), 214-218.
Lu, Z. L., Lv, Y., & Shen, D. L. (2011). Attention load has no effect on implicit sequence learning: evidence from event-related potential studies. Psychological Development and Education, 27 (6), 561-568.
Zhanglong Lu, Jieqiong Lin, Xiaoyu Li. An Experimental Study on Relationship Between Subliminal Emotion and Implicit Sequence Learning: Evidence From Eye Movements. International Journal of Psychological and Brain Sciences. 2018, 3 (1), 1-6.
Reber. A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jiménez, L. (2003). Intention, attention, and consciousness in probabilistic sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Eds.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43-68). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 350-364.
Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 236-259.
Cock, J. J., Berry, D. C., & Buchner, A. (2002). Negative priming and sequence learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 27-48.
Röttger, E., Haider, H., Zhao, F., & Gaschler, R. (2017). Implicit sequence learning despite multitasking: the role of across-task predictability. Psychological Research. 5, 1-18.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Robinson, C. W. (2013). Redundancy matters: Flexible learning of multiple contingencies in infants. Cognition, 126, 156-164.
Sævland, W., & Norman, E. (2016). Studying Different Tasks of Implicit Learning across Multiple Test Sessions Conducted on the Web, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 808. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg. 2016.00808.
Rowland, L. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Attention modulates the learning of multiple contingencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 634–648.
Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the Process Dissociation Procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 343-350.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
Higuchi, Y., & Saiki, J. (2017). Implicit learning of spatial configuration occurs without eye movement. Japanese Psychological Research, 59 (2), 122-132.
Kunar, M. A., Flusberg, S., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 816-828.
Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60 (1-2), 53-71.
Lavie, N. Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. (2005). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82.
Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (2), 270-290.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186