The stuff that motor chunks are made of: Spatial instead of motor representations?

C-SMB 2.0: Integrating over 25 years of motor sequencing research with the Discrete Sequence Production task

An exhaustive review is reported of over 25 years of research with the Discrete Sequence Production (DSP) task as reported in well over 100 articles. In line with the increasing call for theory development, this culminates into proposing the second version of the Cognitive framework of Sequential Motor Behavior (C-SMB 2.0), which brings together known models from cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and motor learning. This processing framework accounts for the many different behavioral results obtained with the DSP task and unveils important properties of the cognitive system. C-SMB 2.0 assumes that a versatile central processor (CP) develops multimodal, central-symbolic representations of short motor segments by repeatedly storing the elements of these segments in short-term memory (STM). Independently, the repeated processing by modality-specific perceptual and motor processors (PPs and MPs) and by the CP when executing sequences gradually associates successively used representations at each processing level. The high dependency of these representations on active context information allows for the rapid serial activation of the sequence elements as well as for the executive control of tasks as a whole. Speculations are eventually offered as to how the various cognitive processes could plausibly find their neural underpinnings within the intricate networks of the brain.

Chord skill: learning optimized hand postures and bimanual coordination

This reaction time study tested the hypothesis that in the case of finger movements skilled motor control involves the execution of learned hand postures. After delineating hypothetical control mechanisms and their predictions an experiment is described involving 32 participants who practiced 6 chord responses. These responses involved the simultaneous depression of one, two or three keys with either four right-hand fingers or two fingers of both hands. After practicing each of these responses for 240 trials, the participants performed the practiced and also novel chords with the familiar and with the unfamiliar hand configuration of the other practice group. The results suggest that participants learned hand postures rather than spatial or explicit chord representations. Participants practicing with both hands also developed a bimanual coordination skill. Chord execution was most likely slowed by interference between adjacent fingers. This interference seemed eliminated with practice for some chords but not for others. Hence, the results support the notion that skilled control of finger movements is based on learned hand postures that even after practice may be slowed by interference between adjacent fingers.

Isoluminant stimuli in a familiar discrete keying sequence task can be ignored

Motor sequencing models suggest that when with extensive practice sequence representations have developed, stimuli indicating the individual sequence elements may no longer be used for sequence execution. However, it is not clear whether participants can at all refrain from processing these stimuli. Two experiments were performed in which participants practiced two 7-keypress sequences by responding to isoluminant key-specific stimuli. In the mixed condition of the ensuing test phase, the stimuli were displayed only occasionally, and the question was whether this would make participants stop processing these stimuli. In Experiment 1, the benefit of displaying stimuli was assessed after substantial practice, while Experiment 2 examined development of this benefit across practice. The results of Experiment 1 showed that participants rely a little less on these stimuli when they are displayed only occasionally, but Experiment 2 revealed that participants quickly developed high awareness, and that they ignored these stimuli already after limited practice. These findings confirm that participants can choose to ignore these isoluminant stimuli but tend to use them when they are displayed. These and other findings show in some detail how various cognitive systems interact to produce familiar keying sequences.

The Simon effect in a discrete sequence production task: Key-specific stimuli cannot be ignored due to attentional capture

Two experiments examined whether practicing discrete key pressing sequences eventually leads to a disregard of the key-specific stimuli, as suggested by sequence learning models, or whether these stimuli continue to be relied upon because the associated luminance increase attracts visuospatial attention. Participants practiced two sequences by reacting to two fixed series of seven letter stimuli, each displayed at a location that did or did not correspond with the required response location. Stimulus use was indicated by a Simon effect in that key presses were slowed when stimulus and key locations did not correspond. Experiment 1 demonstrated that letter stimuli continued to be used as the Simon effect occurred with each sequence element, and this remained quite stable across practice and did not differ for familiar and unfamiliar sequences. Experiment 2 showed that the Simon effect remained present even with meaningless stimuli that were often even harmful. These findings suggest that even in motor sequences that can be executed without element-specific stimuli attention attraction enforces stimulus use. The data further supported the assumptions that S-R translation and sequencing systems are racing to trigger individual responses, and that explicit sequence representations include spatial and verbal knowledge.

Multi-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Primary Motor Cortex Facilitates Sequence Learning, Chunking, and One Year Retention

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) can facilitate motor learning, but it has not been established how stimulation to other brain regions impacts online and offline motor sequence learning, as well as long-term retention. Here, we completed three experiments comparing the effects of tDCS and sham stimulation to the prefrontal cortex (PFC), M1, and the supplementary motor area complex to understand the contributions of these brain regions to motor sequence learning. In Experiment 1, we found that both left and right PFC tDCS groups displayed a slowing in learning in both reaction time and number of chunks, whereas stimulation over M1 improved both metrics over the course of three sessions. To better understand the sequence learning impairment of left PFC anodal stimulation, we tested a left PFC cathodal tDCS group in Experiment 2. The cathodal group demonstrated learning impairments similar to the left PFC anodal stimulation group. In Experiment 3, a subset of participants from the left PFC, M1, and sham tDCS groups of Experiment 1 returned to complete a single session without tDCS on the same sequences assigned to them 1 year previously. We found that the M1 tDCS group reduced reaction time at a faster rate relative to the sham and left PFC groups, demonstrating faster relearning after a one-year delay. Thus, our findings suggest that, regardless of the polarity of stimulation, tDCS to PFC impairs sequence learning, whereas stimulation to M1 facilitates learning and relearning, especially in terms of chunk formation.

Skill in discrete keying sequences is execution rate specific

The present study tested the hypothesis that in motor sequences, the interval between successive movements is critical for the type of representation that develops. Participants practiced two 7-key sequences in the context of a discrete sequence production (DSP) task. The 0-RSI group practiced these sequences with response stimulus intervals (RSIs) of 0, which is typical for the DSP task, while the long-RSI group practiced the same sequences with unpredictable RSIs between 500 and 2000 ms. The ensuing test phase examined performance of these familiar and of unfamiliar sequences for both groups under both RSI regimes. The results support our hypothesis that the motor chunks that 0-RSI participants developed could not be used with long RSIs, whereas the long-RSI participants developed sequence representations that cannot be used with 0 RSIs. A new, computerized, sequence awareness task showed that long-RSI participants had limited sequence knowledge. The sequencing skill developed by long-RSI participants can, therefore, not have been based on explicit knowledge.

Do musicians learn a fine sequential hand motor skill differently than non-musicians?

Do professional musicians learn a fine sequential hand motor skill more efficiently than non-musicians? Is this also the case when they perform motor imagery, which implies that they only mentally simulate these movements? Musicians and non-musicians performed a Go/NoGo discrete sequence production (DSP) task, which allows to separate sequence-specific from a-specific learning effects. In this task five stimuli, to be memorized during a preparation interval, signaled a response sequence. In a practice phase, different response sequences had to be either executed, imagined, or inhibited, which was indicated by different response cues. In a test phase, responses were required to familiar (previously executed, imagined, or inhibited) and unfamiliar sequences. In both phases, response times and response accuracy were measured while the electroencephalogram (EEG) was only registered during the practice phase to compare activity between motor imagery, motor execution, and motor inhibition for both groups. Results in the practice phase revealed that musicians learned the response sequences faster and more accurately than non-musicians although no difference in initiation time was found. EEG analyses revealed similar lateralized activity during learning a motor skill for both groups. Our results from the test phase showed better sequence-a-specific learning effects (i.e., faster response times and increased accuracy) for musicians than for non-musicians. Moreover, we revealed that non-musicians benefit more from physical execution while learning a required motor sequence, whereas sequence-specific learning effects due to learning with motor imagery were very similar for musicians and non-musicians.

Explaining the neural activity distribution associated with discrete movement sequences: Evidence for parallel functional systems

To explore the effects of practice we scanned participants with fMRI while they were performing four-key unfamiliar and familiar sequences, and compared the associated activities relative to simple control sequences. On the basis of a recent cognitive model of sequential motor behavior (C-SMB), we propose that the observed neural activity would be associated with three functional networks that can operate in parallel and that allow (a) responding to stimuli in a reaction mode, (b) sequence execution using spatial sequence representations in a central-symbolic mode, and (c) sequence execution using motor chunk representations in a chunking mode. On the basis of this model and findings in the literature, we predicted which neural areas would be active during execution of the unfamiliar and familiar keying sequences. The observed neural activities were largely in line with our predictions, and allowed functions to be attributed to the active brain areas that fit the three above functional systems. The results corroborate C-SMB’s assumption that at advanced skill levels the systems executing motor chunks and translating key-specific stimuli are racing to trigger individual responses. They further support recent behavioral indications that spatial sequence representations continue to be used.

Training Motor Sequences: Effects of Speed and Accuracy Instructions

Participants practiced a fixed 3- and a fixed 6-key press sequence for 144 times each. In the speed group, they were instructed to execute their sequences fast without bothering much about errors while the accurate group was instructed to be careful and prevent errors. In the test phase, participants executed series of 3 and 6 responses (a) when all element-specific stimuli were displayed in the familiar order, (b) in response to just the familiar first stimulus, and (c) by responding to random stimuli. The speed instruction yielded stronger sequencing skill while the accuracy instruction developed stronger reaction skill.

How effector-specific is the effect of sequence learning by motor execution and motor imagery?

The aim of the present study was twofold. First, we wanted to examine how effector specific the effect of sequence learning by motor execution is, and second, we wanted to compare this effect with learning by motor imagery. We employed a Go/NoGo discrete sequence production task in which in each trial a spatial sequence of five stimuli was presented. After a Go signal the corresponding spatial response sequence had to be executed, while after a NoGo signal, the response sequence had to be mentally imagined. For the training phase, participants were divided into two groups. In the index finger group, participants had to respond (physically or mentally) with the left or right index finger, while in the hand group they had to respond with four fingers of the left or right hand. In a final test phase both execution modes were compared and all trials had to be executed. Response times and the percentage of correct responses were determined to establish learning effects. Results showed that sequence learning effects as assessed in the test phase were independent of the effector used during the training phase. Results revealed the presence of aspecific learning effects in the case of learning a required motor task with an index finger, but sequence-specific learning effects, both due to motor execution and to motor imagery, were not effector specific.

Serial practice impairs motor skill consolidation

Recent reports have revealed that motor skill learning is impaired if two skills are practiced one after the other, that is before the first skill has had the time to become consolidated. This suggests that motor skills should be practiced in isolation from one another to minimize interference. At the moment, little is known about the effect of practice schedules high in contextual interference on motor skill consolidation. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether a serial practice schedule impairs motor skill consolidation. Participants had to learn two distinct sequences of finger movements (A and B) under either a blocked practice schedule or a serial practice schedule before being retested the following day. A control group also practiced Sequence A only. Our results revealed that a blocked practice schedule led to no interference between the sequences, whereas a serial practice schedule impaired the consolidation of Sequence B. In Experiment 2, we investigated the origin of the interference caused by a serial practice schedule by replacing the physical practice of Sequence A with either the observation of a model performing Sequence A or by asking participants to produce random finger movements. Our results revealed that both tasks interfered with the consolidation of Sequence B. Thus, we suggest that a serial practice schedule impairs motor skill consolidation through a conflict in the brain networks involved in the acquisition of the cognitive representation of the sequence and its execution.

Similar Representations of Sequence Knowledge in Young and Older Adults: A Study of Effector Independent Transfer

Older adults show reduced motor performance and changes in motor skill development. To better understand these changes, we studied differences in sequence knowledge representations between young and older adults using a transfer task. Transfer, or the ability to apply motor skills flexibly, is highly relevant in day-to-day motor activity and facilitates generalization of learning to new contexts. By using movement types that are completely unrelated in terms of muscle activation and response location, we focused on transfer facilitated by the early, visuospatial system. We tested 32 right-handed older adults (65–75) and 32 young adults (18–30). During practice of a discrete sequence production task, participants learned two six-element sequences using either unimanual key-presses (KPs) or by moving a lever with lower arm flexion-extension (FE) movements. Each sequence was performed 144 times. They then performed a test phase consisting of familiar and random sequences performed with the type of movements not used during practice. Both age groups displayed transfer from FE to KP movements as indicated by faster performance on the familiar sequences in the test phase. Only young adults transferred their sequence knowledge from KP to FE movements. In both directions, the young showed higher transfer than older adults. These results suggest that the older participants, like the young, represented their sequences in an abstract visuospatial manner. Transfer was asymmetric in both age groups: there was more transfer from FE to KP movements than vice versa. This similar asymmetry is a further indication that the types of representations that older adults develop are comparable to those that young adults develop. We furthermore found that older adults improved less during FE practice, gained less explicit knowledge, displayed a smaller visuospatial working memory capacity and had lower processing speed than young adults. Despite the many differences between young and older adults, the ability to apply sequence knowledge in a flexible way appears to be partly preserved in older adults.