Lateralized implicit sequence learning in uni- and bi-manual conditions

It has been proposed that the right hemisphere (RH) is better suited to acquire novel material whereas the left hemisphere (LH) is more able to process well-routinized information. Here, we ask whether this potential dissociation also manifests itself in an implicit learning task. Using a lateralized version of the serial reaction time task (SRT), we tested whether participants trained in a divided visual field condition primarily stimulating the RH would learn the implicit regularities embedded in sequential material faster than participants in a condition favoring LH processing. In the first study, half of participants were presented sequences in the left (vs. right) visual field, and had to respond using their ipsilateral hand (unimanual condition), hence making visuo-motor processing possible within the same hemisphere. Results showed successful implicit sequence learning, as indicated by increased reaction time for a transfer sequence in both hemispheric conditions and lack of conscious knowledge in a generation task. There was, however, no evidence of interhemispheric differences. In the second study, we hypothesized that a bimanual response version of the lateralized SRT, which requires interhemispheric communication and increases computational and cognitive processing loads, would favor RH-dependent visuospatial/attentional processes. In this bimanual condition, our results revealed a much higher transfer effect in the RH than in the LH condition, suggesting higher RH sensitivity to the processing of novel sequential material. This LH/RH difference was interpreted within the framework of the Novelty-Routinization model [Goldberg, E., & Costa, L. D. (1981). Hemisphere differences in the acquisition and use of descriptive systems. Brain and Language, 14(1), 144-173] and interhemispheric interactions in attentional processing [Banich, M. T. (1998). The missing link: the role of interhemispheric interaction in attentional processing. Brain and Cognition, 36(2), 128-157].