Scribd
Upload
11 views5 pages

PalPatel AU2120005 LabReport5 (Tutorial4)

The document details a sequential learning experiment conducted by Pal Patel as part of a psychology lab course, focusing on implicit versus explicit memory through reaction times in sequential and random conditions. The experiment utilized PsychoPy to measure participants' responses to probes appearing on vertical lines, revealing faster reaction times in the sequential condition due to implicit learning. Results indicate a significant difference in reaction times between the two conditions, highlighting the human contingency effect, with suggestions for counterbalancing to mitigate potential practice effects.

Uploaded by

Sachi Shah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views5 pages

PalPatel AU2120005 LabReport5 (Tutorial4)

The document details a sequential learning experiment conducted by Pal Patel as part of a psychology lab course, focusing on implicit versus explicit memory through reaction times in sequential and random conditions. The experiment utilized PsychoPy to measure participants' responses to probes appearing on vertical lines, revealing faster reaction times in the sequential condition due to implicit learning. Results indicate a significant difference in reaction times between the two conditions, highlighting the human contingency effect, with suggestions for counterbalancing to mitigate potential practice effects.

Uploaded by

Sachi Shah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

1

Pal Patel
AU2120005

Sequence Learning Experiment

PSY310 Lab in Psychology

17/10/23

Pal C. Patel

AU2120005
2
Pal Patel
AU2120005

GitHub Link: https://github.com/PalPatel2803/Sequential-Learning-Experiment

INTRODUCTION:

One of the many distinctions of memory is the method with which the memory is

encoded. Based on that, there are two types of memory: Implicit and Explicit. Explicit

memory is when you knowingly learn some information to encode it in your memory.

Implicit memory is when some data is non-consciously encoded in your memory. Here, in the

sequential learning experiment, we will test the participants' responses in two conditions:

Sequential and Random. In the sequential condition, the subject is expected to implicitly

learn the sequence so that the reaction time would be less than that of the random condition.

This is accomplished by asking the participants to perform a task where a probe

would appear on one of the four lines, and then the subject would respond with a letter, either

‘z’, ‘x’, ‘c’ or ‘v’ accordingly. The probe will appear in either a sequential pattern or a

random pattern. Such an experiment is formed using PsychoPy. When there is learning

happening, the contingency of the correct answers would be much more than when learning

is not there. This is because of the predictiveness of the stimuli, and it relates to the future

learning about that stimulus (M. E. Le Pelley, 2011). This is demonstrated in the motor

sequence learning experiment.

METHOD:

Participants and Testing Condition:

The experimenter herself performed the experiment for the Lab in Psychology course.

It was completed in a quiet setting without any disturbances, and the data was then collected

of the 400 observations in .csv format and analysed.

Materials and Procedure:


3
Pal Patel
AU2120005

The experiment was constructed using PsychoPy on a laptop. In the task, four

consecutive vertical lines appeared after the fixation and then a probe would appear on any of

those lines, and the subject would have to press either ‘z’, ‘x’, ‘c’ or ‘v’ according to the line

on which the probe appeared. The probe's appearance on the lines can be either sequential or

random. The trials for both sequential and random were kept the same. The sequence

condition was made in Excel and added to the trials. It is as follows:

The whole experiment was created following the instructions of the professor. After

the experiment was done, the data was collected and analysed. The incorrect trials were

removed, and the average was calculated for the correct trials for sequential and random

conditions. The inaccurate trial for the sequential condition was one; for the random

condition, they were 5. This clearly shows the human contingency effect.

RESULTS:

The mean reaction times were calculated for sequential and random conditions, and

the difference between them was calculated.


4
Pal Patel
AU2120005

The difference between the means of sequential and random conditions shows clear signs of

sequential learning.

Further, the reaction times for all the accurate trials for both conditions were plotted

on a line graph to compare the two.

Trials v/s RT
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Reaction Time (RT)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106113120127134141148155162169176183190197

No. of Trials

Squential_RT Random_RT

DISCUSSION:

The difference between the means of the reaction times of the two conditions is

because of the implicit learning that happens. As mentioned above, the subjects learn the

sequence of the sequential condition without their conscious knowledge. So, because of the

human contingency effect, their reaction times become faster in sequential tasks, but they

stay unaffected in the random condition. So, the reaction times of the two conditions have a

significant difference.
5
Pal Patel
AU2120005

Since the design of this experiment is a within-subject, one of the drawbacks it might

have is the general practice effect, which means that the subject might get more proficient in

the task with more trials, or they could get bored or feel fatigued while performing (Barry. H.

Kantowitz, 2008). This effect can be controlled by counterbalancing. Here, we will keep the

sequential and random conditions in a random order to counterbalance. This means that some

participants will perform the sequential task first and then the arbitrary task, while others will

perform the random task first and then the sequential task. This counterbalancing would be

more helpful if there were more participants, but having more subjects was out of the scope

of this course.

Bibliography
M. E. Le Pelley, O. G. (2011). Overt Attention and Predictiveness in Human Contingency
Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Barry. H. Kantowitz, H. L. (2008). Experimental Psychology. Wadsworth: Wadsworth
Publishing Co. Inc.

You might also like