Dataset Information

Accuracy-based measures provide a better measure of sequence learning than reaction time-based measures.

ABSTRACT: The Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) was designed to measure motor sequence learning and is widely used in many fields in cognitive science and neuroscience. However, the common performance measures derived from SRTT-reaction time (RT) difference scores-may not provide valid measures of sequence learning. This is because RT-difference scores may be subject to floor effects and otherwise not sufficiently reflective of learning. A ratio RT measure might minimize floor effects. Furthermore, measures derived from predictive accuracy may provide a better assessment of sequence learning. Accordingly, we developed a Predictive Sequence Learning Task (PSLT) in which performance can be assessed via both RT and predictive accuracy. We compared performance of N = 99 adults on SRTT and PSLT in a within-subjects design and also measured fluid abilities. The RT-difference scores on both tasks were generally not related to fluid abilities, replicating previous findings. In contrast, a ratio RT measure on SRTT and PSLT and accuracy measures on PSLT were related to fluid abilities. The accuracy measures also indicated an age-related decline in performance on PSLT. The current patterns of results were thus inconsistent across different measures on the same tasks, and we demonstrate that this discrepancy is potentially due to floor effects on the RT difference scores. This may limit the potential of SRTT to measure sequence learning and we argue that PSLT accuracy measures could provide a more accurate reflection of learning ability.

SUBMITTER: Urry K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4531304 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy-based measures provide a better measure of sequence learning than reaction time-based measures.

Urry Kristi K Burns Nicholas R NR Baetu Irina I

Frontiers in psychology 20150811

The Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) was designed to measure motor sequence learning and is widely used in many fields in cognitive science and neuroscience. However, the common performance measures derived from SRTT-reaction time (RT) difference scores-may not provide valid measures of sequence learning. This is because RT-difference scores may be subject to floor effects and otherwise not sufficiently reflective of learning. A ratio RT measure might minimize floor effects. Furthermore, measure ...[more]

PMID: 26321982

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dementia researchers around the world prioritize the urgent need for sensitive measurement tools that can detect cognitive and functional change at the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Sensitive indicators of underlying neural pathology assist in the early detection of cognitive change and are thus important for the evaluation of early-intervention clinical trials. One method that may be particularly well-suited to help achieve this goal involves the quantification of intraindividual variability (IIV) in cognitive performance. The current study aimed to directly compare two methods of estimating IIV (fluctuations in accuracy-based scores vs. those in latency-based scores) to predict cognitive performance in AD. Specifically, we directly compared the relative sensitivity of reaction time (RT)-and accuracy-based estimates of IIV to cognitive compromise. The novelty of the present study, however, centered on the patients we tested [a group of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD)] and the outcome measures we used (a measure of general cognitive function and a measure of episodic memory function). Hence, we compared intraindividual standard deviations (iSDs) from two RT tasks and three accuracy-based memory tasks in patients with possible or probable Alzheimer's dementia (n = 23) and matched healthy controls (n = 25). The main analyses modeled the relative contributions of RT vs. accuracy-based measures of IIV toward the prediction of performance on measures of (a) overall cognitive functioning, and (b) episodic memory functioning. Results indicated that RT-based IIV measures are superior predictors of neurocognitive impairment (as indexed by overall cognitive and memory performance) than accuracy-based IIV measures, even after adjusting for the timescale of measurement. However, one accuracy-based IIV measure (derived from a recognition memory test) also differentiated patients with AD from controls, and significantly predicted episodic memory performance. The findings suggest that both RT- and accuracy-based IIV measures may be useful indicators of underlying neuropathology. The present study therefore contributes toward an understanding of the relative utility of RT- and accuracy-based IIV measures in detecting neurocognitive impairment in older adults, and also advances the empirical evaluation of sensitive markers of cognitive change in patients with AD.

Project description:BackgroundMotor learning has been investigated using various paradigms, including serial reaction time tasks (SRTT) that examine upper extremity reaching and pointing while seated. Few studies have used a stepping SRTT, which could offer additional insights into motor learning involving postural demands. For a task to measure motor learning, naïve participants must demonstrate a) improved performance with task practice, and b) a dose-response relationship to learning the task.Research questionIs a stepping SRTT feasible and efficacious for measuring motor learning?MethodsIn this prospective study, 20 participants stood on an instrumented mat and were presented with stimuli on a computer screen. They stepped to the corresponding positions on the mat as quickly as possible. Presented stimuli included random sequences and a blinded imbedded repeating sequence. Three days after completing the randomly assigned practice dose [high dose group (n = 10) performed 4320 steps; low dose group (n = 10) performed 144 steps], a retention test of 72 steps was performed. Feasibility was measured as the proportion of participants who completed the assigned practice dose without adverse events. Efficacy was measured as within-group performance improvement on the random sequences and on the repeating sequence (paired t-tests), as well as a dose-response relationship to learning both types of sequences (independent t-tests).ResultsAll participants (mean age 26.8 years) completed all practice sessions without adverse events, indicating feasibility. High dose practice resulted in performance improvement while low dose did not; a dose-response relationship was found, with high dose practice resulting in greater learning of the task than low dose practice, indicating efficacy.SignificanceThis stepping SRTT is a feasible and efficacious way to measure motor learning, which could provide critical insights into anticipatory stepping, postural control, and fall risk. Future research is needed to determine feasibility, efficacy, and optimal practice dosages for older and impaired populations.

Project description:The approximate number system (ANS) was proposed to be a building block for later mathematical abilities. Several measures have been used interchangeably to assess ANS acuity. Some of these measures were based on accuracy data, whereas others relied on response time (RT) data or combined accuracy and RT data. Previous studies challenged the view that all these measures can be used interchangeably, because low correlations between some of the measures had been observed. These low correlations might be due to poor reliability of some of the measures, since the majority of these measures are mathematically related. Here we systematically investigated the relationship between common ANS measures while avoiding the potential confound of poor reliability. Our first experiment revealed high correlations between all accuracy based measures supporting the assumption that all of them can be used interchangeably. In contrast, not all RT based measures were highly correlated. Additionally, our results revealed a speed-accuracy trade-off. Thus, accuracy and RT based measures provided conflicting conclusions regarding ANS acuity. Therefore, we investigated in two further experiments which type of measure (accuracy or RT) is more informative about the underlying ANS acuity, depending on participants' preferences for accuracy or speed. To this end, we manipulated participants' preferences for accuracy or speed both explicitly using different task instructions and implicitly varying presentation duration. Accuracy based measures were more informative about the underlying ANS acuity than RT based measures. Moreover, the influence of the underlying representations on accuracy data was more pronounced when participants preferred accuracy over speed after the accuracy instruction as well as for long or unlimited presentation durations. Implications regarding the diffusion model as a theoretical framework of dot comparison as well as regarding the relationship between ANS acuity and math performance are discussed.

Dataset Information

Accuracy-based measures provide a better measure of sequence learning than reaction time-based measures.

Publications

Accuracy-based measures provide a better measure of sequence learning than reaction time-based measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets