In the Serial Reaction Time Task, participants respond to several stimuli usually being unaware that the stimuli follow a predefined sequence while still learning the sequence. In the present study, we aimed to clearly separate explicit intentional learning from implicit incidental learning by either informing participants about all details of the sequence or not informing participants about the existence of the sequence. Further, we explored the influence of anticipatory cues during practice while anticipatory cues were either presented (extrinsically triggered anticipation) or not presented (self-reliant intrinsic anticipation). Participants were tested before and after practice in the Practice Sequence and a Control Sequence. To test automatization, tests were performed in Single-Task and Dual-Task Blocks. Results showed that after learning with explicit instructions, participants memorized the sequence more deeply and executed the sequence faster than after learning without explicit instructions. Further, by learning with anticipatory cues, participants memorized the sequence less deeply and executed the sequence slower than by learning without anticipatory cues. Unexpectedly, automatization was sequence-unspecific and independent of the practice conditions. In conclusion, detailed explicit prior information about the sequence facilitates sequence learning while anticipatory online cues during practice hamper sequence learning.

The cholinergic system plays a key role in motor function, but whether pharmacological modulation of cholinergic activity affects motor sequence learning is unknown. The acetylcholine receptor antagonist biperiden, an established treatment in movement disorders, reduces attentional modulation, but whether it influences motor sequence learning is not clear. Using a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design, we tested 30 healthy young participants and showed that biperiden impairs the ability to learn sequential finger movements, accompanied by widespread oscillatory broadband power changes (4-25 Hz) in the motor sequence learning network after receiving biperiden, with greater power in the theta, alpha and beta bands over ipsilateral motor and bilateral parietal-occipital areas. The reduced early theta power during a repeated compared with random sequence, likely reflecting disengagement of top-down attention to sensory processes, was disrupted by biperiden. Alpha synchronization during repeated sequences reflects sensory gating and lower visuospatial attention requirements compared with visuomotor responses to random sequences. After biperiden, alpha synchronization was greater, potentially reflecting excessive visuospatial attention reduction, affecting visuomotor responding required to enable sequence learning. Beta oscillations facilitate sequence learning by integrating visual and somatosensory inputs, stabilizing repeated sequences and promoting prediction of the next stimulus. The beta synchronization after biperiden fits with a disruption of the selective visuospatial attention enhancement associated with initial sequence learning. These findings highlight the role of cholinergic processes in motor sequence learning.

BACKGROUND: Digital neuropsychological tools for diagnosing neurodegenerative diseases in the older population are becoming more relevant and widely adopted because of their diagnostic capabilities. In this context, explicit memory is mainly examined. The assessment of implicit memory occurs to a lesser extent. A common measure for this assessment is the serial reaction time task (SRTT).
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and empirically test a digital tablet-based SRTT in older participants with cognitive impairment (CoI) and healthy control (HC) participants. On the basis of the parameters of response accuracy, reaction time, and learning curve, we measure implicit learning and compare the HC and CoI groups.
METHODS: A total of 45 individuals (n=27, 60% HCs and n=18, 40% participants with CoI-diagnosed by an interdisciplinary team) completed a tablet-based SRTT. They were presented with 4 blocks of stimuli in sequence and a fifth block that consisted of stimuli appearing in random order. Statistical and machine learning modeling approaches were used to investigate how healthy individuals and individuals with CoI differed in their task performance and implicit learning.
RESULTS: Linear mixed-effects models showed that individuals with CoI had significantly higher error rates (b=-3.64, SE 0.86; z=-4.25; P<.001); higher reaction times (F1,41=22.32; P<.001); and lower implicit learning, measured via the response increase between sequence blocks and the random block (β=-0.34; SE 0.12; t=-2.81; P=.007). Furthermore, machine learning models based on these findings were able to reliably and accurately predict whether an individual was in the HC or CoI group, with an average prediction accuracy of 77.13% (95% CI 74.67%-81.33%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that the HC and CoI groups differed substantially in their performance in the SRTT. This highlights the promising potential of implicit learning paradigms in the detection of CoI. The short testing paradigm based on these results is easy to use in clinical practice.

Implicit motor sequence learning (IMSL) is a cognitive function that is known to be associated with impaired motor function in Parkinson\'s disease (PD). We previously reported positive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) on IMSL in 11 individuals with PD with mild cognitive impairments (MCI), with the largest effects occurring during reacquisition. In the present study, we included 35 individuals with PD, with (n = 15) and without MCI (n = 20), and 35 age- and sex-matched controls without PD, with (n = 13) and without MCI (n = 22). We used mixed-effects models to analyze anodal M1 tDCS effects on acquisition (during tDCS), short-term (five minutes post-tDCS) and long-term reacquisition (one-week post-tDCS) of general and sequence-specific learning skills, as measured by the serial reaction time task. At long-term reacquisition, anodal tDCS resulted in smaller general learning effects compared to sham, only in the PD group, p = .018, possibly due to floor effects. Anodal tDCS facilitated the acquisition of sequence-specific learning (M = 54.26 ms) compared to sham (M = 38.98 ms), p = .003, regardless of group (PD/controls). Further analyses revealed that this positive effect was the largest in the PD-MCI group (anodal: M = 69.07 ms; sham: M = 24.33 ms), p < .001. Although the observed effect did not exceed the stimulation period, this single-session tDCS study confirms the potential of tDCS to enhance IMSL, with the largest effects observed in patients with lower cognitive status. These findings add to the body of evidence that anodal tDCS can beneficially modulate the abnormal basal ganglia network activity that occurs in PD.

Administering anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at the primary motor cortex (M1) at various temporal loci relative to motor training is reported to affect subsequent performance gains. Stimulation administered in conjunction with motor training appears to offer the most robust benefit that emerges during offline epochs. This conclusion is made, however, based on between-experiment comparisons that involved varied methodologies. The present experiment addressed this shortcoming by administering the same 15-minute dose of anodal tDCS at M1 before, during, or after practice of a serial reaction time task (SRTT). It was anticipated that exogenous stimulation during practice with a novel SRTT would facilitate offline gains. Ninety participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: tDCS before practice, tDCS during practice, tDCS after practice, or no tDCS. Each participant was exposed to 15 min of 2 mA of tDCS and motor training of an eight-element SRTT. The anode was placed at the right M1 with the cathode at the left M1, and the left hand was used to execute the SRTT. Test blocks were administered 1 and 24 h after practice concluded. The results revealed significant offline gain for all conditions at the 1-hour and 24-hour test blocks. Importantly, exposure to anodal tDCS at M1 at any point before, during, or after motor training failed to change the trajectory of skill development as compared to the no-stimulation control condition. These data add to the growing body of evidence questioning the efficacy of a single bout of exogenous stimulation as an adjunct to motor training for fostering skill learning.

Procedural memory is involved in the acquisition and control of skills and habits that underlie rule and procedural learning, including the acquisition of grammar and phonology. The serial reaction time task (SRTT), commonly used to assess procedural learning, has been shown to have poor stability (test-retest reliability). We investigated factors that may affect the stability of the SRTT in adults. Experiment 1 examined whether the similarity of sequences learned in two sessions would impact stability: test-retest correlations were low regardless of sequence similarity (r < .31). Experiment 2 added a third session to examine whether individual differences in learning would stabilise with further training. There was a small (but nonsignificant) improvement in stability for later sessions (Sessions 1 and 2: r = .42; Sessions 2 and 3: r = .60). Stability of procedural learning on the SRTT remained suboptimal in all conditions, posing a serious obstacle to the use of this task as a sensitive predictor of individual differences and ultimately theoretical advance.

Action-imagery practice (AIP) is assumed to result in partly different action representations than action-execution practice (AEP). The present study investigated whether focusing on either kinesthetic or visual aspects of a task during practice amplifies or diminishes such differences between AIP and AEP. In ten sessions, four groups, using either AIP or AEP with either kinesthetic or visual focus, practiced a twelve-element sequence in a unimanual serial reaction time task. Tests involved the practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence, each performed with the practice and transfer hand. In AIP and AEP, in both hands, reaction times (RTs) were shorter in the practice sequence than in the different sequence, indicating effector-independent visual-spatial sequence representations. Further, RTs were shorter in the practice hand than in the transfer hand in the practice sequence (but not in the different sequence), indicating effector-dependent representations in AEP and AIP. Although the representation types did not differ, learning effects were stronger in AEP than in AIP. Thus, although to a lower extent than in AEP, effector-dependent representations can be acquired using AIP. Contrary to the expectations, the focus manipulation did not have an impact on the acquired representation types. Hence, modality instructions in AIP may not have such a strong impact as commonly assumed, at least in implicit sequence learning.

Prior research investigating whether and how multisensory information facilitates skill learning is quite mixed; whereas some research points to congruent information improving learning, other work suggests that people become reliant on the redundant information, such that its removal ultimately detracts from the ability to perform a unisensory task. We examined this question using the Serial Interception Sequence Learning (SISL) task, a visuo-motor paradigm in which participants implicitly learn a sequence embedded in noise. We investigated whether adding auditory information in different ways would enhance real time sequence learning and whether any benefits of multisensory learning would persist with visual-only testing. Auditory information was used either as feedback on the visuo-motor task (Experiments 1 and 2) or was presented synchronously with visual information during learning (Experiment 3). Robust sequence-specific performance advantages occurred across conditions and experiments; however, auditory information enhanced real-time performance only when it was synchronized with visual information. Participants were significantly more accurate, faster, and more precise with stimulus-locked auditory information during training. Notably, these benefits did not generalize to the visual-only context, suggesting that the benefits of stimulus-locked auditory information are primarily useful only when the perceptual information is present.

In humans, it is now established that sequential regularities can be learned implicitly (i.e. without acquiring conscious knowledge) or explicitly (with acquisition of conscious knowledge). Is this dual-processing capability also the case for non-human primates? In this study, we designed a non-verbal task to probe implicit and explicit sequence learning in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus sp., n = 12), human adults (n = 12), and children from 5 to 10 years old (n = 64). After learning spatial sequences on a touchscreen, participants\' conscious access to the sequences was probed with a forced choice sequence completion test. All performed above chance level in this test, without being instructed or trained to do so. However, only human adults who reported the presence of regularities performed at ceiling level. We suggest future directions that could build on our findings to disentangle implicit and explicit learning in monkeys and children.

The Serial Reaction Time task, one of the most widely used tasks to index procedural memory, has been increasingly employed in individual differences research examining the role of procedural memory in language and other cognitive abilities. Yet, despite consistently producing robust procedural learning effects at the group level (i.e. faster responses to sequenced/probable trials versus random/improbable trials), these effects have recently been found to have poor reliability. In this meta-analysis (N = 7), comprising 719 participants (M = 20.81, s.d. = 7.13), we confirm this \'reliability paradox\'. The overall retest reliability of the robust procedural learning effect elicited by the SRTT was found to be well below acceptable psychometric standards (r < 0.40). However, split-half reliability within a session is better, with an overall estimate of 0.66. There were no significant effects of sampling (participants\' age), methodology (e.g. number of trials, sequence type) and analytical decisions (whether all trials were included when computing the procedural learning scores; using different indexes of procedural learning). Thus, despite producing robust effects at the group-level, until we have a better understanding of the factors that improve the reliability of this task using the SRTT for individual differences research should be done with caution.