1. Acquisition & Retention of Basic Components of Skill Robert W. Proctor Motonori Yamaguchi Purdue University Army Research Office Grant W9112NF-05-1-0153 Training Knowledge and Skills for the Networked Battlefield

2. “The most distinguishing characteristic of (the future force) will be the interconnectivity of information systems.” (Gen. Byrnes, 2004, at the Army National Guard Senior Commanders’ conference) “The application of information technology can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes involved in warfighting … Investing in IT systems to enable warfighting is therefore logical and necessary.” (Col. Costigan, March 2004, TRADOC News Service) Acquisition and Retention of Basic Components of Skills

3. “The biggest source of confusion in man- machine communication arises when the brain has to translate and interpret information.” – Paul Fitts Our research has focused on tasks involving response-selection skills Phenomena we studied were stimulus- response compatibility (SRC) effects

4. Acquisition and Retention of Basic Components of Skills I.Transfer of newly acquired associations Proctor, Yamaguchi, & Vu (in press). JEP: LMC II.Training with mixed mappings and tasks Yamaguchi & Proctor (in press). JEP:Applied III. Performance of multiple tasks Shin & Proctor (submitted).

5. I. Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations The new procedures acquired from training can affect performance when transferred to a different task or environment. Our experiments have examined transfer that occurs when the acquired procedures are no longer relevant.

6. Influence of a Prior Incompatible Location Mapping on the Simon Effect Practice with an incompatible mapping and transfer to a pure Simon task (for which stimulus location is irrelevant) Practice SessionTransfer Session GreenRed

7. Influence of a Prior Incompatible Location Mapping on the Simon Effect Previous Studies With visual stimuli, as little as 84 trials of practice with an incompatible spatial mapping eliminates the Simon effect after a delay of: 5 minutes—The Simon effect reversed (-9 ms) One week—The Simon effect reversed (-21 ms) With auditory stimuli, no transfer of incompatible spatial mapping Simon effect not reduced Why?

8. Design Transfer session: Auditory Simon task Practice session: Incompatible mapping of left- right auditory stimuli to left-right keypresses Varied amount of practice: 0 (control), 84, 300, or 600 trials

9. Transfer of Prior Association for Auditory Stimuli: Amount of Practice Amount of Practice

10. Transfer of incompatible spatial mapping occurred with more practice Weaker transfer effect than for visual Simon tasks (Vu et al., 2003)  Acquisition of stronger (more automatic?) associations needed. Transfer of Prior Association for Auditory Stimuli: Amount of Practice

11. Green Red Green Red Practice dimension Transfer dimension Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Visual Stimuli)

12. Vu (2006): Visual Stimuli No transfer across dimensions with 84 trials of practice Transfer across dimensions with 600 trials of practice Interpretation: With sufficient practice, a “respond opposite” procedure is acquired

13. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) Practice session (600 trials): a) Horizontal [white noise] b) Vertical [white noise] Transfer session: a) Horizontal Simon task [rapid/slow noise] b) Vertical Simon task [rapid/slow noise]

14. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) H = Horizontal practice; V = Vertical practice Horizontal TransferVertical Transfer

15. Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) Generalization of prior incompatible association did not occur across spatial dimensions for auditory stimuli.  No evidence for acquisition of a general “respond opposite” procedure with an incompatible auditory S-R mapping.

16. Summary: Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations Visual Transfer Tasks: Generalization of prior association occurred across spatial dimensions after 600 practice trials  Rule-like procedure is acquired during practice Auditory Transfer Tasks: More practice is required for transfer of prior association within a spatial dimension  Stronger tendency of responding with natural association Generalization of prior mapping did not occur across spatial dimensions

17. Plan: Transfer of Newly Acquired Associations Development of automaticity: Dual-task practice (coupled with an attention demanding secondary task) General rule acquisition: Practice with variable stimuli (training difficulty hypothesis) Transfer across different manual operations Perceptual, motoric, or more abstract procedural transfer?

18. II. Training with Mixed Mappings and Tasks Effects of having to maintain multiple associations concurrently Mixed compatible and incompatible mappings: Longer RT overall (mixing cost) Benefit for compatible mapping largely eliminated Does this finding generalize to a simulated environment?

21. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Flight Task) Task: While flying, squares appear on the top right or top left of the screen Green square: Turn yoke in that direction Red square: Turn yoke in opposite direction Display: Horizon-move vs. Pointer-move Four trial blocks Pure compatible Pure incompatible Mixed compatible and incompatible (2 blocks)

25. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Flight Task)

26. Mixed Mappings and Tasks (Non-Flight Task)

28. Summary: Mixed Mappings and Tasks SRC effect reduced but not eliminated in flight tasks The effect was also reduced for yoke-turn responses, but was eliminated for button- presses, in non-flight tasks  SRC effects with mixed mappings depend on response mode  Different response preparation processes?  If so, how does practice affect response preparation?

29. Plan: Mixed Mappings and Tasks Response mode: What factors of response mode result in differential effects with mixed mappings? Effect of practice on response preparation: If preparatory process is responsible, what type of practice alters the process and how? Generalized rule acquisition: Practice with mixed mappings enables generalized rule acquisition? Training difficulty or training specificity?

30. Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) effect “Slower responding to the second of the two stimuli when the interval between them is short” Usually attributed to a response-selection bottleneck Ideomotor Compatibility “Stimulus and response are ideomotor compatible when the sensory effect of the stimulus is similar to that of response.” e.g.) Repeating a word that is heard III. Performance of Multiple Tasks

31. Do ideomotor compatible tasks allow bypass of the response-selection bottleneck? Greenwald and Shulman (1973): Yes. Lien, Proctor, & Allen (2002): No. Are the tasks used in prior studies really ideomotor compatible? Saying the name of a spoken letter Moving joystick left or right (or pressing left or right key) to spatially positioned arrow

32. Performance of Multiple Tasks Two experiments varying set size for visual manual task Experiment 1: Joystick movements Experiment 2: Keypresses ↑ →← ↓

33. Performance of Multiple Tasks Across 4 “sessions” of 48 trial blocks, the PRP effect increased in size Decrease in RT for auditory-vocal task was larger at long interval between two stimuli Even with practice, these tasks still show PRP effects Visual-manual tasks are not ideomotor compatible RT for the visual-motor tasks was longer with 4 alternatives than with 2 PRP effect for auditory-vocal task was larger

34. Summary: Factors Affecting Response-Selection Process Transfer experiments: Differential effects of stimulus modalities (visual vs. auditory) Spatial dimension (horizontal vs. vertical) Stimulus similarity Mixed mapping tasks: Pure vs. mixed presentation (mixing cost) Response mode (yoke vs. button)

35. Summary: Factors Affecting Response-Selection Process Dual-task experiments: Psychological refractory period Response-selection bottleneck Manual response alternatives Set-size effects for visual-manual task Not ideomotor compatible Issue of why PRP effect increases with practice for these task combinations but decreases for others

36. Research Plans Integration with Other Work Training Principles (e.g., specificity of training; procedural reinstatement; training difficulty hypothesis) Predictive Modeling using ACT-R and other models

41. Auditory/visual practice  Auditory Simon tasks Practice trials Practice Stimuli AuditoryVisual Control (0)42 844748 3001751 6001843 1,200-37

42. Horizontal/vertical practice  Horizontal/vertical transfer Practice Dimension Transfer Dimension HorizontalVertical Horizontal-18-9 Vertical2 *Results of Vu (2006)

43. *Values in parentheses are the Simon effect after 1,200 trials of practice Horizontal/vertical practice  Horizontal/vertical transfer Practice Dimension Transfer Dimension [stimuli] Horizontal [tone] Horizontal [noise] Vertical [noise] Control (no practice) 394134 Horizontal20-2011 (42) Vertical5536 (42)-7

44. PureMixed Horizon-move82*57* Pointer-move91*41* Results of Exp 1-2 * denotes significant effect at.05

45. PureMixed Yoke-turn49*32* Button-press 57*-10 Results of Exp 3-4 * denotes significant effect at.05

46. Sequential Effects on SRC Effects PureRepeatAlternate Horizon-move827244 Pointer-move916518 Yoke-turn494816 Button-press57-4-13

47. Auditory Practice Visual Practice Generalization Across Stimulus Modalities: Amount of Practice (delete the visual practice)

48. H = Horizontal practice; V = Vertical practice Horizontal (tone) Transfer Vertical (noise) Transfer Horizontal (noise) Transfer Generalization Across Spatial Dimension (Auditory Stimuli) (Delete horizontal tone)

49. Sequential Effects on SRC Effects Horizon- move Pointer- move Yoke- turn Button- press P R A P = Pure R = Repeat A = Alternate P R A