Procedural memory

About: Procedural memory is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1147 publications have been published within this topic receiving 74956 citations.

By Carrot or by Stick: Cognitive Reinforcement Learning in Parkinsonism

Abstract: To what extent do we learn from the positive versus negative outcomes of our decisions? The neuromodulator dopamine plays a key role in these reinforcement learning processes. Patients with Parkinson's disease, who have depleted dopamine in the basal ganglia, are impaired in tasks that require learning from trial and error. Here, we show, using two cognitive procedural learning tasks, that Parkinson's patients off medication are better at learning to avoid choices that lead to negative outcomes than they are at learning from positive outcomes. Dopamine medication reverses this bias, making patients more sensitive to positive than negative outcomes. This pattern was predicted by our biologically based computational model of basal ganglia-dopamine interactions in cognition, which has separate pathways for "Go" and "NoGo" responses that are differentially modulated by positive and negative reinforcement.

How many memory systems are there

Abstract: Memory is made up of a number of interrelated systems, organized structures of operating components consisting of neural substrates and their behavioral and cognitive correlates. A ternary clas- sificatory scheme of memory is proposed in which procedural, semantic, and episodic memory constitute a "monohierarchical" arrangement: Episodic memory is a specialized subsystem of semantic memory, and semantic memory is a specialized subsystem of procedural memory. The three memory systems differ from one another in a number of ways, including the kind of consciousness that characterizes their operations. The ternary scheme overlaps with di- chotomies and trichotomies of memory proposed by others. Evidence for multiple systems is derived from many sources. Illustrative data are provided by ex- periments in which direct priming effects are found to be both functionally and stochastically independent of recognition memory. Solving puzzles in science has much in common with solving puzzles for amusement, but the two differ in important respects. Consider, for instance, the jigsaw puzzle that scientific activity frequently imitates. The everyday version of the puzzle is determinate: It consists of a target picture and jigsaw pieces that, when properly assembled, are guaranteed to match the picture. Scientific puzzles are indeter- minate: The number of pieces required to complete a picture is unpredictable; a particular piece may fit many pictures or none; it may fit only one picture, but the picture itself may be unknown; or the hypothetical picture may be imagined, but its com- ponent pieces may remain undiscovered. This article is about a current puzzle in the science of memory. It entails an imaginary picture and a search for pieces that fit it. The picture, or the hypothesis, depicts memory as consisting of a number of systems, each system serving somewhat different purposes and operating according to some- what different principles. Together they form the marvelous capacity that we call by the single name of memory, the capacity that permits organisms to benefit from their past experiences. Such a picture is at variance with conventional wisdom that holds memory to be essentially a single system, the idea that "memory is memory." The article consists of three main sections. In the first, 1 present some pretheoretical reasons for hypothesizing the existence of multiple memory systems and briefly discuss the concept of memory system. In the second, I describe a ternary classifi- catory scheme of memory--consisting of procedural, semantic, and episodic memory--and briefly com- pare this scheme with those proposed by others. In the third, I discuss the nature and logic of evidence for multiple systems and describe some experiments that have yielded data revealing independent effects of one and the same act of learning, effects seemingly at variance with the idea of a single system. I answer the question posed in the title of the article in the short concluding section.

Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study

Abstract: Organizational routines-multi-actor, interlocking, reciprocally-triggered sequences of actions-are a major source of the reliability and speed of organizational performance. Without routines, organizations would lose efficiency as structures for collective action. But these frequently repeated action sequences can also occasionally give rise to serious suboptimality, hampering performance when they are automatically transferred onto inappropriate situations. While the knowledgeable design and redesign of routines presents a likely lever for those wishing to enhance organizational performance, the lever remains difficult to grasp because routines are hard to observe, analyze, and describe. This paper argues that new work in psychology on "procedural" memory may help explain how routines arise, stabilize and change. Procedural memory has close links to notions of individual skill and habit. It is memory for how things are done that is relatively automatic and inarticulate, and it encompasses both cognitive and motor activities. We report an experiment in which paired subjects developed interlocked task performance patterns that display the chief characteristics of organizational routines. We show evidence from their behavior supporting the claim that individuals store their components of organizational routines in procedural memory. If routines are stored as distributed procedural memories, this may be the source of distinctive properties reported by observers of organizational routines. The paper concludes with implications for both research and practice.