Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:22:23.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

15 - Laboratory Studies of Training, Skill Acquisition, and Retention of Performance

from PART IV - METHODS FOR STUDYING THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXPERTISE

By
Robert W. Proctor  and
Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Edited by
K. Anders Ericsson ,
Neil Charness ,
Paul J. Feltovich  and
Robert R. Hoffman
Robert W. Proctor
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University
Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
K. Anders Ericsson
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Neil Charness
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Paul J. Feltovich
Affiliation:
University of West Florida
Robert R. Hoffman
Affiliation:
University of West Florida
Get access

Summary

For most investigations of expertise, conclusions are drawn about the knowledge representations and strategies of experts through observing their performance of tasks in natural or artificial settings, analyzing verbal protocols that they provide while performing the tasks, and using knowledge-elicitation methods. A major component of research on expertise involves comparing the performance of experts to that of novices on specific tasks in the laboratory. Level of expertise is a subject variable for which the prerequisite training and experience of the experts has occurred prior to task performance. Investigations of experts in a variety of domains with these methods have provided invaluable information about the nature of expert performance and knowledge, and the ways in which they differ from those of novices. However, because the acquisition of the experts' skills is completed prior to the investigation, issues concerning how this expertise was acquired and how it is maintained outside of the laboratory can be investigated only through self-reports. Although self-reports can yield substantial data, they are limited in their ability to provide detailed information about the changes in information processing and performance that occur as the skill develops and the conditions that optimize acquisition and retention of these skills.

Learning and retention have been studied extensively in the laboratory since the earliest days of psychology. For a large part of the 20th century, much of the efforts of experimental psychologists were centered on studying animal learning and human verbal learning (e.g., Leahey, 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance , pp. 265 - 286
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahissar, M. (1999). Perceptual learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, M. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory. Cognition, 44, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 640–645.Google Scholar
Bilodeau, E. A., & Bilodeau, I. M. (Eds.) (1969). Principles of skill acquisition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Briggs, G. E., & Naylor, S. C. (1962). The relative efficiency of several training methods as a function of transfer task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). Wine descriptive language supports cognitive specificity of chemical senses. Brain and Language, 77, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1899). Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review 6, 345–375.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. I. D. (1987). Network interference and mental multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 109–123.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. I. D., & Graham, D. J. (1985). Mental multiplication skill: Structure, process, and acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 338–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, D. M., Healy, A. F., Ericsson, K. A., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (2001). Retention and transfer of Morse code reception skill by novices: Part-whole training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 129–142.Google ScholarPubMed
Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Keele, S. W. (1998). Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.Google Scholar
Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Delaney, P. F., Reder, L. M., Staszewski, J. J., & Ritter, F. E. (1998). The strategy-specific nature of improvement: The power law applies by strategy within task. Psychological Science, 9, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 343–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doane, S. M., Alderton, D. L., Sohn, Y. W., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1996). Acquisition and transfer of skilled performance: Are visual discrimination skills stimulus specific? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1218–1248.Google Scholar
Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801–809.Google ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fahle, M., & Edelman, S. (1993). Long-term learning in vernier acuity: Effects of stimulus orientation, range and of feedback. Vision Research, 33, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahle, M., & Poggio, T. (Eds.) (2002). Perceptual learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In Melton, A. W. (Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 243–285). New York: Academic Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fendrich, D. W., Gesi, A. T., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1995). The contribution of procedural reinstatement to implicit and explicit memory effects in a motor task. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp. 66–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1989). An approach to training based upon principled task decomposition. Acta Psychologica, 71, 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1947) (Ed.). Motion picture research and testing (Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program Research Reports, Report No. 7). Washingon, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Schyns, P. G., & Medin, D. L. (1997). Learning to bridge between perception and cognition. In Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Schyns, P. G. (Eds.), Perceptual learning (The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 36, pp. 1–14). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gottsdanker, R., & Stelmach, G. E. (1971). The persistence of psychological refractoriness. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2002). Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not: Comment on Rickard (1997, 1999), Delaney et al. (1998), and Palmeri (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 392–406.Google Scholar
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.Google ScholarPubMed
Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E. L., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2005). The procedural reinstatement principle: Studies on training, retention, and transfer. In Healy, A. F. (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 59–71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A., & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1029–1039.Google ScholarPubMed
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, A. (1996). The acquisition of perceptual and motor skills: A memory system in the adult human cortex. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karni, A., & Bertini, G. (1997). Learning perceptual skills: Behavioral probes into adult plasticity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875.Google Scholar
Leahey, T. H. (2003). Cognition and learning. In Freedheim, D. K. (Ed.), History of psychology (pp. 109–133). Volume 1 in Weiner, I. B. (Editor-in-Chief) Handbook of psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862–869.Google ScholarPubMed
Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisitions (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991). Procedural learning: Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M.-A. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 785–800.Google ScholarPubMed
Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., Hommel, B., & Vogt, S. (1995). Handlungen als Ereignisse [Actions as events]. In Dörner, D. & Meer, E. (Eds.), Gedächtnis: Trends, probleme, perspekitiven (pp. 129–168). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1993). Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 922–930.Google ScholarPubMed
Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In Hommel, B. & Prinz, W. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11–37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rickard, T. C. (2004). Strategy execution and cognitive skill learning: An item-level test of candidate models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 65–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Rickard, T. C., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (1994). On the cognitive structure of basic arithmetic skills: Operation, order, and symbol transfer effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1139–1153.Google Scholar
Rickard, T. C., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (1996). Some tests of an identical elements model of basic arithmetic skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1281–1295.Google ScholarPubMed
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280–289.Google ScholarPubMed
Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (in press). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automation, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research.
Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanes, J. N. (2003). Neocortical mechanisms in motor learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiffrin, R. M. (1996). Laboratory experimentation on the genesis of expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 337–345). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Lightfoot, N. (1997). Perceptual learning of alphanumeric-like characters. In Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Schyns, P. G. (Eds.), Perceptual learning (The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 36, pp. 45–81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In Proctor, R. W. & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Webster, J. B. (1973). Reaction toward the stimulus source: Analysis of correct responses and errors over a five-day period. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snoddy, G. S. (1926). Learning and stability: A psychophysiological analysis of a case of motor learning with clinical applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, M.-H., & Carlson, R. A. (1998). Procedural frameworks for simple arithmetic tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1052–1067.Google Scholar
Sowden, P. T., Davies, I. R. L., & Roling, P. (2000). Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: A functional role for improvements in adults, visual sensitivity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 379–390.Google ScholarPubMed
Speelman, C. P., & Kirsner, K. (2001). Predicting transfer from training performance. Acta Psychologica, 108, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of LTM links and STM links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648–670.Google Scholar
Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Cross-modal re-mapping influences the Simon effect. Memory & Cognition, 30, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Selst, M. A., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268–1283.Google ScholarPubMed
Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Influences on the Simon effect of prior practice with spatially incompatible mappings: Transfer within and between horizontal and vertical dimensions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., & Urcuioli, P. (2003). Effects of practice with an incompatible location-relevant mapping on the Simon effect in a transfer task. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1146–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L. & Shanks, D. R. (2004). Intentional control and implicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 354–369.Google ScholarPubMed
Willingham, D. B. (1999). Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual. Memory & Cognition, 27, 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1047–1060.Google ScholarPubMed
Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×