Biomedical subjects

David J Marcus

Publications and source records attributed to David J Marcus.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Oculomotor and manual indexes of incidental and intentional spatial sequence learning during middle childhood and adolescence.

The goal of this study was to examine incidental and intentional spatial sequence learning during middle childhood and adolescence. We tested four age groups (8-10 years, 11-13 years, 14-17 years, and young adults [18+ years]) on a serial reaction time task and used manual and oculomotor measures to examine incidental sequence learning. Participants were also administered a trial block in which they were explicitly instructed to learn a sequence. Replicating our previous study with adults, oculomotor anticipations and response times showed learning effects similar to those in the manual modality. There were few age-related differences in the sequence learning indexes during incidental learning, but intentional learning yielded differences on all indexes. Results indicate that the search for regularities and the ability to learn a sequence rapidly under incidental conditions are mature by 8 to 10 years of age. In contrast, the ability to learn a sequence intentionally, which requires cognitive resources and strategies, continues to develop through adolescence.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Oculomotor evidence of sequence learning on the serial reaction time task.

Manual and oculomotor measures of sequence learning were examined on the serial reaction time (SRT) task Participants were assigned into four groups differing on response modality (manual, oculomotor) and trial type (sequence, pseudorandom). The pattern of manual RTs replicated previous studies. Frequency of anticipatory eye movements followed similar patterns as RTs. Participants made many anticipations, even in pseudorandom blocks, and frequency of anticipations did not depend on presence of concurrent manual responses. Excluding participants with explicit awareness did not change results. Anticipations were negatively related to RTs in both incidental and intentional learning. Anticipations were positively related to sequence recall in intentional, but not incidental, learning. Results suggest that (1) anticipatory eye movements reflected sequence learning and (2) participants made overt and covert shifts of visuospatial attention to likely stimulus locations prior to stimulus onset, whether or not they made manual responses and whether or not there was a sequence.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Attention allocation in the dual-task paradigm as measured through behavioral and psychophysiological responses.

We investigated attention allocation in a dual-task paradigm using behavioral and pupillary measures. We used an auditory digit span (DS) and a simple visual response time (RT) task. Participants were administered four conditions in which they performed neither task (no-task), a single task (DS or RT only), or both tasks (dual). Dependent variables were DS accuracy, RT, and task-evoked pupillary responses (TEPRs) to digits as estimates of mental effort. Participants maintained almost the same level of DS accuracy on dual as on DS only and sacrificed speed on the RT task. As expected, TEPRs increased linearly with memory load in both DS only and dual. Although TEPRs were initially higher in dual than in DS only, the slope of the increase was shallower in dual. Results suggest that TEPRs can elucidate mechanisms of attention allocation by distinguishing between effectiveness (level of behavioral performance) and efficiency (the costs of that performance in mental effort).

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Motor sequence learning and reading ability: is poor reading associated with sequencing deficits?

Although it is widely assumed that children with learning disabilities have "sequencing problems," these have not been well specified. A non-verbal serial reaction time (SRT) paradigm was used to evaluate motor sequence learning in 422 children between ages 7 and 11 in relation to reading, cognitive ability level, and attention problems. The children demonstrated the response profile typically associated with motor sequence learning, but the component of the profile indicative of implicit sequence learning was not reliably associated with any of the predictors. Cognitive ability predicted overall response time; cognitive ability, reading, and attention problems each predicted overall accuracy. Explicit learning was predicted by cognitive ability, but not by reading or attention problems. Thus, we found no evidence that poor reading is preferentially associated with a domain general deficit in sequential learning.

Aptitude↗