Procedural Memory and Skill Acquisition
Abstract
This chapter discusses the development, maintenance, and exercise of skilled behavior and the roles of explicit, declarative memory and implicit, procedural memory in the development of skill. The development of skill can be considered as a progression from a deliberative, declarative mode of processing to a more efficient, autonomous mode of processing in which performance is based on well‐learned associations. Progress has been made in understanding how perceptual‐motor and cognitive relations, skills, and proficiencies are acquired as a function of experience, and in understanding what sorts of experiences lead to the greatest improvements, retention, and transfer. Increasingly, research efforts have been devoted to understanding the role of attention in acquiring and exercising skill. The nature of the relationship between implicit and explicit learning remains a topic of debate. Some researchers suggest that implicit knowledge provides the basis for explicit knowledge, whereas others maintain that explicit knowledge is converted into procedural knowledge. Recent evidence suggests that implicit learning is independent of explicit learning, and that performance that is initially dominated by conscious mediation may come to rely on implicit knowledge developed as a result of task performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In-weights RL (i.e., RL training) can be interpreted as updating procedural memory via skill acquisition.
“In-weights RL (i.e., RL training) can be interpreted as updating procedural memory [Johnson, 2003] via skill acquisition.”
From Artificial Generational Intelligence: Cultural Accumulation in Reinforcement Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Johnson, 2003
Cites
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479 · see citing works
Declarative and Nondeclarative Memory: Multiple Brain Systems Supporting Learning and Memory
Squire, L. R. (1992) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.232 · Cited by 1,282 · see citing works
The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I).
Woodworth, R. S., & Thorndike, E. L. (1901) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0074898 · Cited by 1,223 · see citing works
S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0062827 · Cited by 1,088 · see citing works
Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.
Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S., & Shapiro, D. C. (1989) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.352 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning.
Swinnen, S. P., Schmidt, R. A., Nicholson, D. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.706 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Blocking Learner Error States in a Training-Wheels System
Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872088402600402 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge of results.
Lavery, J. J. (1962) · Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie · doi:10.1037/h0083257 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice?
Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1993) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.922 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Generational Intelligence: Cultural Accumulation in Reinforcement Learning
Cook, J., Lu, C., Hughes, E., Leibo, J. Z., & Foerster, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.00392 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“The corresponding approach is detailed in Algorithm 3, presented in Appendix A. In-weights RL (i.e., RL training) can be interpreted as updating procedural memory [Johnson, 2003] via skill acquisition.”
Method
- Authors
- Johnson, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Johnson, Addie
- Venue
- Handbook of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-15
- Pages
- 499-523
- OpenAlex
- W2098826743
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley eBooks (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- procedural memory, skill acquisition, implicit learning, explicit learning, declarative memory, implicit memory, skill development, skill retention, transfer of learning, perceptual-motor learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review