Procedural and declarative knowledge simultaneously contribute to category response selection.

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Priya B Kalra, Laura J Batterink, John P Minda
{"title":"Procedural and declarative knowledge simultaneously contribute to category response selection.","authors":"Priya B Kalra, Laura J Batterink, John P Minda","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02162-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Skilled behaviour in real-world contexts often relies on a combination of both declarative and procedural learning. However, precisely how declarative and procedural knowledge interact is not yet fully understood. Previous findings have shown that procedural and declarative learning may interact or compete at the systems level during encoding, consolidation, and retrieval, but beyond this, it is not known whether declarative and procedural representations themselves interact. The goal of the current study is to investigate whether procedural and declarative knowledge can contribute simultaneously to categorization response selection behavior. We designed a stimulus set in which information learned by each system sometimes supports different responses, and created trials in the test phase that are designed to maximize such divergence. Participants were instructed to use a completely diagnostic, verbalizable, shape-based rule to categorize exemplars, receiving feedback after each trial. However, unbeknownst to participants, the categories also differed probabilistically in their color distributions. Participants used both color (learned procedurally) and shape (learned declaratively) to categorize exemplars, responding more quickly when both sources indicated the same category judgement, and more slowly when they conflicted. Debriefing confirmed that most participants were unaware of the color distributions. These results show simultaneous trial-level contributions from both declarative and procedural memory systems. Our findings represent a novel form of interaction between the two systems and have implications for domains beyond the laboratory, such as decision-making and classroom instruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 5","pages":"146"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02162-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Skilled behaviour in real-world contexts often relies on a combination of both declarative and procedural learning. However, precisely how declarative and procedural knowledge interact is not yet fully understood. Previous findings have shown that procedural and declarative learning may interact or compete at the systems level during encoding, consolidation, and retrieval, but beyond this, it is not known whether declarative and procedural representations themselves interact. The goal of the current study is to investigate whether procedural and declarative knowledge can contribute simultaneously to categorization response selection behavior. We designed a stimulus set in which information learned by each system sometimes supports different responses, and created trials in the test phase that are designed to maximize such divergence. Participants were instructed to use a completely diagnostic, verbalizable, shape-based rule to categorize exemplars, receiving feedback after each trial. However, unbeknownst to participants, the categories also differed probabilistically in their color distributions. Participants used both color (learned procedurally) and shape (learned declaratively) to categorize exemplars, responding more quickly when both sources indicated the same category judgement, and more slowly when they conflicted. Debriefing confirmed that most participants were unaware of the color distributions. These results show simultaneous trial-level contributions from both declarative and procedural memory systems. Our findings represent a novel form of interaction between the two systems and have implications for domains beyond the laboratory, such as decision-making and classroom instruction.

程序性知识和陈述性知识同时有助于类别反应选择。
在现实世界中,熟练的行为往往依赖于陈述性和程序性学习的结合。然而,陈述性知识和程序性知识究竟是如何相互作用的,我们还没有完全理解。先前的研究结果表明,在编码、巩固和检索过程中,程序学习和陈述性学习可能在系统层面上相互作用或竞争,但除此之外,陈述性和过程性表征本身是否相互作用尚不清楚。本研究的目的是探讨程序性知识和陈述性知识是否能同时促进分类反应选择行为。我们设计了一个刺激集,其中每个系统学习到的信息有时支持不同的反应,并在测试阶段创建了旨在最大化这种差异的试验。参与者被要求使用一种完全可诊断的、可语言表达的、基于形状的规则来对样本进行分类,并在每次试验后接受反馈。然而,参与者不知道的是,这些类别在颜色分布上也存在概率差异。参与者同时使用颜色(程序性习得)和形状(陈述性习得)对样本进行分类,当两种来源表明相同的类别判断时,反应更快,而当它们相冲突时反应更慢。汇报证实,大多数参与者都不知道颜色的分布。这些结果显示了陈述性和程序性记忆系统同时在试验水平上的贡献。我们的研究结果代表了两个系统之间的一种新的互动形式,并对实验室以外的领域有影响,如决策和课堂教学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信