Maybe causal, but still cautious: Reply to “Cautious or causal? Key implicit sequence learning paradigms should not be overlooked when assessing the role of DLPFC (Commentary on Prutean et al.)”

In our recent work (Prutean et al., 2021), we presented the existing evidence on the causal role of DLPFC top-down control on the acquisition and automatic expression of implicit sequence learning. Contrary to our expectations, we concluded that up to date there is not sufficient evidence supporting...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: Prutean, Nicoleta, Martín-Arévalo, Elisa, Leiva, Alicia, Jiménez García, Luis, Vallesi, Antonino, Lupiáñez, Juan
Format: article
Publication Date:2022
Country:España
Institution:Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (USC)
Repository:Minerva. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Language:English
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:minerva_____::fc4f9b0435705ff31b4027c7fd714df4
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10347/47531
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:Implicit sequence learning
DLPFC stimulation
6106 Psicología experimental
Description
Summary:In our recent work (Prutean et al., 2021), we presented the existing evidence on the causal role of DLPFC top-down control on the acquisition and automatic expression of implicit sequence learning. Contrary to our expectations, we concluded that up to date there is not sufficient evidence supporting a causal role of DLPFC in modulating either the acquisition or the expression of sequence learning. Vekony et al. (2022) published a recent commentary which points toward the procedural differences between the paradigms in which DLPFC stimulation produced an effect on sequence learning (i.e., ASRT in Ambrus et al., 2020; Janacsek et al., 2015) and those which actually provided evidence for the absence of such effect (i.e., SRT in Prutean et al., 2021) and they advanced that the DLPFC contribution to sequence learning might be task-dependent, since it was observed just in the ASRT paradigm, and not, for instance, in the SRT paradigm. We agree that there are methodological characteristics that differentiate the two paradigms, and point to other differences, as well as to the need of further studies which compare in a within-subjects design the ASRT and the SRT tasks with the same frequency information, stimulation and timing procedure.