The present experiment attempted to replicate the orienting task-specificity phenomenon demonstrated by Ho and Shea (1979). The failure to verify their findings creates a serious problem for research on incidental psychomotor learning. The lack of an acceptable theoretical framework to explain either Ho and Shea's results or the present findings, coupled with an extremely limited data-base, leaves many questions. The conclusion is that orienting task-specificity is not a robust phenomenon in psychomotor learning.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.On the integration of the verbal and motor domains. In MagillR. A. (Ed.), Memory and control of action. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1983. Pp. 3–15.
2.
BaddeleyA. D.The trouble with levels: a reexamination of Craik and Lockhart's framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 139–152.
3.
ChowP. C. P.CurrieJ. L., & CraikF. I. M.Intentional learning and retention of words following orienting tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978, 12, 109–117.
4.
CrockerP. R. E., & DickinsonJ.Incidental psychomotor learning: the effects of number of movements, practice, and rehearsal. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1984, 16, 61–75.
5.
DickinsonJ.Incidental motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9, 135–138.
6.
FriedmanA., & PolsonM. C.Hemispheres as independent resource systems: limited capacity processing and cerebral specialization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1981, 7, 1031–1058.
7.
GhatalaE. S.CarbonariJ. P., & BobbleL. Z.Developmental changes in incidental memory as a function of processing level, congruity, and repetition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1980, 29, 74–87.
8.
HoL., & SheaJ. B.Orienting task specificity in incidental motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1979, 9, 141–151.
9.
JenkinsJ. J.Four points to remember: a tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In CermakL. S. & CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1979. Pp. 429–446.
10.
LockhartR. S.CraikF. I. M., & JacobyL.Depth of processing, recognition, and recall. In BrownJ. (Ed.), Recall and recognition. New York: Wiley, 1976. Pp. 75–96.
11.
McLaughlinB.“Intentional” and “incidental” learning in human subjects: the role of instructions to learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63, 359–376.
12.
MillerJ.Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: in search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982, 8, 273–296.
13.
NavonD., & GopherD.On the economy of the information processing system. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 214–255.
14.
NormanD. A., & BobrowD. G.On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 83, 508–510.
15.
PaivioA.Imagery and verbal processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
16.
PostmanL., & UnderwoodB. J.Critical issues in interference theory. Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1, 19–40.
17.
RunquistW. N.Interference among memory traces. Memory and Cognition, 1975, 3, 143–159.
18.
SheaJ. B., & ZimnyS. T.Context effects in memory and learning movement information. In MagillR. A. (Ed.), Memory and control of action. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1983. Pp. 345–366.
