Mechanisms underlying the emergence of consciously aware knowledge in an implicit learning task

在内隐学习研究领域，关于序列的有意识是如何在内隐学习情境中产生的一直是一个备受争议的问题。在文献中可以对比两类理论：根据第一类，显式表征来自于隐式表征的加强。因此，这门课假设了内隐表征和外显表征之间的数量差异。相反，第二类假设内隐知识和外显知识之间存在质的差异。例如，意外事件假说（UEH; Haider & Frensch，2005）属于第二类理论。它假设内隐知识导致可能违反预期的行为变化。这种违反然后触发明确的搜索过程，这反过来又导致有意识地获取知识。实验的目的是检验这两类理论的相互作用，在第一组实验中，我们通过调整内隐知识的强度，例如，在一定的语境中，序列的重复率。根据第一类理论，这应该增加有意识地可访问的序列知识。然而，如果UEH适用，我们应该能够证明，为了增加有意识的知识，需要额外的违反期望。第二系列实验则集中在反应-效应学习（R-E学习），这可能会增加违反预期的可能性。例如，Hoffmann及其同事（2001）的研究结果表明，对反应效应的关注增加了外显知识的数量。此外，Keele等人（2003）认为，R-E学习在潜在表征方面可能不同于S-S和R-R学习。R-E学习被认为是基于维度间的学习过程，因为反应与远端环境中的事件相关联。相比之下，S-S和R-R学习来自单一维度内的表示。因此，第二组实验的目的是在内隐学习情境中，在保持S-S和R-R偶发事件不变的情况下，操纵R-E偶发事件。我们假设，如果一个人自己的行为偶然地导致了远端环境中的某些事件，那么关于S-S-和R-R序列的意识知识应该会增加。总的来说，计划中的实验有助于我们理解意识和机制的出现，有意识的知识，在一个内隐学习的情况下。

In the field of implicit learning research, it is a highly debated question how conscious awareness about a sequence arises in an implicit learning situation. Two classes of theories can be contrasted in the literature: According to the first class, explicit representations result from strengthening of implicit representations. Thus, this class presumes quantitative differences between implicit and explicit representations. On the contrary, the second class postulates qualitative differences between implicit and explicit knowledge. As an example, the Unexpected-Event Hypothesis (UEH; Haider & Frensch, 2005) belongs to this second class of theories. It presumes that implicit knowledge leads to behavioral changes which might violate the expectations. This violation then triggers explicit search processes which in turn lead to consciously accessible knowledge. The goal of the proposed experiments is to test these two classes of theories against each other.In the first series of experiments, we manipulate the strength of implicitly acquired knowledge by, for instance, the repetition rate of the sequence within a certain context. According to the first class of theories, this should increase consciously accessible sequence knowledge. However, should the UEH apply, we should be able to show that an additional violation of expectations is needed in order to increase conscious knowledge. The second series of experiments then focuses on response-effect learning (R-E learning) which might increase the probability of experiencing a violation of expectancies. For instance, the findings of Hoffmann and colleagues (2001) suggest that increasing attention to response effects increases the amount of explicit knowledge. Furthermore, Keele et al. (2003) suggest that R-E learning might differ from S-S and R-R learning in terms of the underlying representation. R-E learning is assumed to be based on inter-dimensional learning processes because reactions are associated with events in the distal environment. By contrast, S-S and R-R learning results from representations within one single dimension. Therefore, the goal of the second series of experiments is to manipulate the R-E contingencies in an implicit learning situation while S-S and R-R contingencies are kept constant. We presume that conscious knowledge about S-S- and R-R sequences should increase if ones own actions contingently lead to certain events in the distal environment. Overall, the planned experiments contribute to our understanding of consciousness and the mechanisms underlying the emergence of consciously accessible knowledge in an implicit learning situation.