Acquisition & Retention of Basic Components of Skill

1. Acquisition & Retention of Basic Components of Skill Robert W. Proctor Motonori Yamaguchi Purdue University Training Knowledge and Skills for the Networked Battlefield Army Research Office Grant W9112NF-05-1-0153

2. Acquisition and Retention of Basic Components of Skills • “The most distinguishing characteristic of (the future force) will be the interconnectivity of information systems.” (Gen. Byrnes, 2004, at the Army National Guard Senior Commanders’ conference) • “The application of information technology can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes involved in warfighting … Investing in IT systems to enable warfighting is therefore logical and necessary.” (Col. Costigan, March 2004, TRADOC News Service)

3. Acquisition and Retention of Basic Components of Skills • “The biggest source of confusion in man-machine communication arises when the brain has to translate and interpret information.” – Paul Fitts • Our research has focused on tasks involving response-selection skills • Phenomena we studied were stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects

4. Acquisition and Retention of Basic Components of Skills I. Transfer of newly acquired associations Proctor, Yamaguchi, & Vu (in press). JEP: LMC II. Training with mixed mappings and tasks Yamaguchi & Proctor (in press). JEP:Applied III. Performance of multiple tasks Shin & Proctor (submitted).

5. I. Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations • The new procedures acquired from training can affect performance when transferred to a different task or environment. • Our experiments have examined transfer that occurs when the acquired procedures are no longer relevant.

6. Green Red Influence of a Prior Incompatible Location Mapping on the Simon Effect • Practice with an incompatible mapping and transfer to a pure Simon task (for which stimulus location is irrelevant) Practice Session Transfer Session

7. Influence of a Prior Incompatible Location Mapping on the Simon Effect • Previous Studies • With visual stimuli, as little as 84 trials of practice with an incompatible spatial mapping eliminates the Simon effect after a delay of: • 5 minutes—The Simon effect reversed (-9 ms) • One week—The Simon effect reversed (-21 ms) • With auditory stimuli, no transfer of incompatible spatial mapping • Simon effect not reduced • Why?

8. Design • Transfer session: Auditory Simon task • Practice session: Incompatible mapping of left-right auditory stimuli to left-right keypresses • Varied amount of practice: 0 (control), 84, 300, or 600 trials

9. Transfer of Prior Association for Auditory Stimuli: Amount of Practice Amount of Practice

10. Transfer of Prior Association for Auditory Stimuli: Amount of Practice • Transfer of incompatible spatial mapping occurred with more practice • Weaker transfer effect than for visual Simon tasks (Vu et al., 2003) • Acquisition of stronger (more automatic?) associations needed.

11. Green Red Red Green Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Visual Stimuli) Practice dimension Transfer dimension

12. Vu (2006): Visual Stimuli • No transfer across dimensions with 84 trials of practice • Transfer across dimensions with 600 trials of practice • Interpretation: With sufficient practice, a “respond opposite” procedure is acquired

13. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) • Practice session (600 trials): a) Horizontal [white noise] b) Vertical [white noise] • Transfer session: a) Horizontal Simon task [rapid/slow noise] b) Vertical Simon task [rapid/slow noise]

14. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) Horizontal Transfer Vertical Transfer H = Horizontal practice; V = Vertical practice

15. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) • Generalization of prior incompatible association did not occur across spatial dimensions for auditory stimuli. • No evidence for acquisition of a general “respond opposite” procedure with an incompatible auditory S-R mapping.

16. Summary: Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations • Visual Transfer Tasks: • Generalization of prior association occurred across spatial dimensions after 600 practice trials • Rule-like procedure is acquired during practice • Auditory Transfer Tasks: • More practice is required for transfer of prior association within a spatial dimension • Stronger tendency of responding with natural association • Generalization of prior mapping did not occur across spatial dimensions

17. Plan: Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations • Development of automaticity: • Dual-task practice (coupled with an attention demanding secondary task) • General rule acquisition: • Practice with variable stimuli (training difficulty hypothesis) • Transfer across different manual operations • Perceptual, motoric, or more abstract procedural transfer?

18. II. Training with Mixed Mappings and Tasks • Effects of having to maintain multiple associations concurrently • Mixed compatible and incompatible mappings: • Longer RT overall (mixing cost) • Benefit for compatible mapping largely eliminated • Does this finding generalize to a simulated environment?

21. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Flight Task) • Task: • While flying, squares appear on the top right or top left of the screen • Green square: Turn yoke in that direction • Red square: Turn yoke in opposite direction • Display: Horizon-move vs. Pointer-move • Four trial blocks • Pure compatible • Pure incompatible • Mixed compatible and incompatible (2 blocks)

25. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Flight Task)

26. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Non-Flight Task)

27. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Non-Flight Task)

28. Summary:Mixed Mappings and Tasks • SRC effect reduced but not eliminated in flight tasks • The effect was also reduced for yoke-turn responses, but was eliminated for button-presses, in non-flight tasks • SRC effects with mixed mappings depend on response mode • Different response preparation processes? • If so, how does practice affect response preparation?

29. Plan:Mixed Mappings and Tasks • Response mode: • What factors of response mode result in differential effects with mixed mappings? • Effect of practice on response preparation: • If preparatory process is responsible, what type of practice alters the process and how? • Generalized rule acquisition: • Practice with mixed mappings enables generalized rule acquisition? Training difficulty or training specificity?

30. III. Performance of Multiple Tasks • Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) effect “Slower responding to the second of the two stimuli when the interval between them is short” • Usually attributed to a response-selection bottleneck • Ideomotor Compatibility “Stimulus and response are ideomotor compatiblewhen the sensory effect of the stimulus is similar to that of response.” e.g.) Repeating a word that is heard

31. III. Performance of Multiple Tasks • Do ideomotor compatible tasks allow bypass of the response-selection bottleneck? • Greenwald and Shulman (1973): Yes. • Lien, Proctor, & Allen (2002): No. • Are the tasks used in prior studies really ideomotor compatible? • Saying the name of a spoken letter • Moving joystick left or right (or pressing left or right key) to spatially positioned arrow

32. ↑ ← → ↓ Performance of Multiple Tasks • Two experiments varying set size for visual manual task • Experiment 1: • Joystick movements • Experiment 2: • Keypresses

33. Performance of Multiple Tasks • Across 4 “sessions” of 48 trial blocks, the PRP effect increased in size • Decrease in RT for auditory-vocal task was larger at long interval between two stimuli • Even with practice, these tasks still show PRP effects • Visual-manual tasks are not ideomotor compatible • RT for the visual-motor tasks was longer with 4 alternatives than with 2 • PRP effect for auditory-vocal task was larger

34. Summary: Factors Affecting Response-Selection Process • Transfer experiments: • Differential effects of stimulus modalities (visual vs. auditory) • Spatial dimension (horizontal vs. vertical) • Stimulus similarity • Mixed mapping tasks: • Pure vs. mixed presentation (mixing cost) • Response mode (yoke vs. button)

35. Summary: Factors Affecting Response-Selection Process • Dual-task experiments: • Psychological refractory period • Response-selection bottleneck • Manual response alternatives • Set-size effects for visual-manual task • Not ideomotor compatible • Issue of why PRP effect increases with practice for these task combinations but decreases for others

36. Research Plans • Integration with Other Work • Training Principles (e.g., specificity of training; procedural reinstatement; training difficulty hypothesis) • Predictive Modeling using ACT-R and other models

41. Auditory/visual practice  Auditory Simon tasks

42. Horizontal/vertical practice Horizontal/vertical transfer *Results of Vu (2006)

43. Horizontal/vertical practice Horizontal/vertical transfer *Values in parentheses are the Simon effect after 1,200 trials of practice

44. Results of Exp 1-2 * denotes significant effect at .05

45. Results of Exp 3-4 * denotes significant effect at .05

46. Sequential Effects on SRC Effects

47. Generalization Across Stimulus Modalities: Amount of Practice (delete the visual practice) Visual Practice Auditory Practice

48. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) (Delete horizontal tone) Horizontal (tone) Transfer Vertical (noise) Transfer Horizontal (noise) Transfer H = Horizontal practice; V = Vertical practice

49. Sequential Effects on SRC Effects Pointer-move Horizon-move Button-press Yoke-turn P R A P R A P R A P R A P = Pure R = Repeat A = Alternate