Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational motor learning

1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (3-5) ◽  
pp. 349-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Lee ◽  
Margaret A. White
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Meysam Beik ◽  
Hamidreza Taheri ◽  
Alireza Saberi Kakhki ◽  
Majid Ghoshuni

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 196-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Augusto de Camargo Barros ◽  
Go Tani ◽  
Umberto Cesar Corrêa

1992 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Lee ◽  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
Richard A. Schmidt

The contextual interference effect in motor learning refers to the interference that results from practising a task within the concept of other tasks in a practice session. Several studies have shown that practice under conditions of high contextual interference (i.e. with a random practice order) degrades performance during acquisition trials, compared to low contextual interference conditions (i.e. with a blocked order, where practice is completed on one task before practice on another task is undertaken). In contrast to acquisition performance, random practice usually leads to more effective learning than blocked practice, as measured by retention and transfer tests. One of the hypotheses regarding the effect suggests that a random practice schedule induces more extensive planning operations during practice than a blocked practice condition. If so, then differences between these two conditions should emerge to the degree that the set of tasks requires complete reconstruction of these planning operations on each trial. To address this issue, we compared four groups of subjects: a blocked and random group that practised three timing tasks that shared a common characteristic (same relative timing), and a blocked and random group that practised three tasks that each had different relative timing structures. Subjects practised these tasks on each of two days, with a retention test and two transfer tests that required either a relative timing structure that had been practised previously or had not previously been practised. No random/ blocked differences occurred regardless of the relative timing of the patterns during acquisition or retention. However, for both transfer tests, random practice enhanced learning only for the group that had practised with tasks that each had different relative timing during acquisition. Implications of these results for an explanation of contextual interference are discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Kaipa ◽  
Michael Robb ◽  
Richard Jones

In this experiment, we investigated the role of practice variability (constant versus variable practice) and practice schedule (random versus blocked practice) on spatial and temporal learning of a speech task as a function of aging. The participants were 80 healthy individuals (40–80 years) with no history of cognitive, sensory, or motor disorders. A median split was performed to divide the participants into older and younger groups. The median split was at 59 years of age, thus placing 40 participants in each age group. The participants were assigned to one of four practice groups and practiced a nonmeaningful phrase for two consecutive days. On the third day, the participants reproduced the speech phrase without practice. Data analysis revealed that older participants involved in constant practice demonstrated superior temporal learning of the speech task over participants on variable practice. Older participants on random practice demonstrated better spatial learning of the speech task than did participants on blocked practice. In contrast, there was no effect of practice conditions on spatial and temporal learning outcomes in the younger group. The findings indicate that practice variability and practice schedule influence different aspects of a complex speech-motor learning task among older adults but not among younger adults.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umberto Cesar Corrêa ◽  
Herbert Ugrinowitsch ◽  
Rodolfo Novellino Benda ◽  
Go Tani

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy V. Dang ◽  
Darius E. Parvin ◽  
Richard B. Ivry

AbstractThe classic advice given to anyone learning a new skill is “practice makes perfect.” While this provides a good general rule to follow, it lacks any detail on what form of practice will efficiently maximize learning. So when faced with the task of acquiring multiple skills, what is the optimal way to learn? Would it be more beneficial to master each skill separately or learn them all at once in an interleaved fashion? A concept known as contextual interference suggests that using a random practice schedule leads to better retention than a blocked one. There are some motor learning studies that are consistent with this hypothesis and some that are not. In order to explore these conflicting results, we applied contextual interference to a simple reaching task that could allow us to observe its effects to various components of motor learning. We had participants learn three different visuomotor rotations and manipulated interference by placing them in groups characterized by how training targets are ordered (blocked vs. random). Using reaction time and hand angle as our measures of performance, we found that participants who experienced a random practice schedule had significant improvements in their ability to retain information, which was manifest as higher levels of implicit adaptation and faster reaction times. However, this did not necessarily mean the information was executed accurately since hand angles did not differ between groups. These findings suggest contextual interference will be most advantageous in situations that require fast explicit recall of a motor plan to use rather than those that emphasize accuracy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Brydges ◽  
Heather Carnahan ◽  
David Backstein ◽  
Adam Dubrowski

1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Carron ◽  
J. L. Leavitt

50 boys, age 14 to 15 yr., were tested on a tracking task (pursuit rotor) and a large-muscle motor-learning task (stabilometer) to examine the effect of relatively massed practice upon individual differences and intra-individual variation. The practice schedule, which was identical for both tasks, called for 20 50-sec. practice trials with a 10-sec. intertrial rest period. A 5-min. rest was also interpolated every fourth trial. The greatest change in individual differences and intra-individual variation in both tasks occurred during the first 4 practice trials and in the 5-min. interpolated rest which immediately followed. Additional practice and interpolated rest over the remaining 15 practice trials had little additional effect upon either of the sources of variation. The changes in the sources of variation did not, with the exception of intra-individual variability in the stabilometer, appear to be proportional to changes in the mean.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document