Chapter 12 Knowledge Incorporation in Motor Representation

Shea, John B.; Zimny, Susan T.

doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62562-5

Cited by 59 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is despite the implication, from early theorizing, that very specific and/or distinct planning operations characterize a high CI practice schedule (Lee & Magill, 1983Shea & Zimny, 1983;Shea & Zimny, 1988). Thus, the emergence of a unique neural profile or signature during particular CI practice regimes has not been forthcoming.…”

Section: Contextual Interference and Motor Sequence Learning: What Wementioning

confidence: 96%

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor sequence learning under high levels of contextual interference (CI) disrupts initial performance but supports delayed test and transfer performance when compared to learning under low CI. Integrating findings from early behavioral work and more recent experimental efforts that incorporated neurophysiologic measures led to a novel account of the role of CI during motor sequence learning. This account focuses on important contributions from two neural regions-the dorsal premotor area and the SMA complex-that are recruited earlier and more extensively during the planning of a motor sequence in a high CI context. It is proposed that activation of these regions is critical to early adaptation of sequence structure amenable to long-term storage. Moreover, greater CI enhances access to newly acquired motor sequence knowledge through (1) the emergence of temporary functional connectivity between neural sites previously described as crucial to successful longterm performance of sequential behaviors, and (2) heightened excitability of M1-a key constituent of the temporary coupled neural circuits, and the primary candidate for storage of motor memory.

show abstract

Section: Contextual Interference and Motor Sequence Learning: What Wementioning

confidence: 96%

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prominent explanations of practice schedule effects rely on the idea that higher levels of contextual interference introduced during practice result in deeper information processing that ultimately facilitates learning compared to conditions that do not face such a challenge (Lee and Magill, 1983; Shea and Zimny, 1983, 1989). Despite substantial evidence that random practice facilitates learning compared to blocked practice, there is also evidence indicating that random practice is not always advantageous (Del Rey et al, 1987; Aloupis et al, 1996; Guadagnoli et al, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Too Much of a Good Thing: Random Practice Scheduling and Self-Control of Feedback Lead to Unique but Not Additive Learning Benefits

Ali¹,

Fawver²,

Kim³

et al. 2012

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the impact of self-controlled knowledge of results on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of anticipation timing skill as a function of random and blocked practice schedules. Forty-eight undergraduate students were divided into experimental groups that practiced under varying combinations of random or blocked as well as self-controlled or yoked practice conditions. Anticipation timing performance (5, 13, and 21 mph) was recorded during acquisition and during a short term no-feedback retention test. A transfer test, administered 24 h after the retention test, consisted of two novel anticipation timing speeds (9, 17 mph). Absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) of timing served as the dependent measures. All participants improved their accuracy and consistency across acquisition blocks; however, those who practiced under blocked rather than random conditions had greater accuracy (lower AE) regardless of feedback delivery. During retention and transfer, those who practiced under random conditions showed greater consistency (lower VE) compared to their blocked counterparts. Finally, participants who controlled their feedback schedule were more accurate (lower AE) and less variable (lower VE) during transfer compared to yoked participants, regardless of practice scheduling. Our findings indicate that practicing under a random schedule improves retention and transfer consistency, while self-control of feedback is advantageous to both the accuracy and consistency with which anticipation timing skill transfers to novel task demands. The combination of these learning manipulations, however, does not improve skill retention or transfer above and beyond their orthogonal effects.

show abstract

“…To address this issue, two principal theoretical explanations originating from the verbal skill literature have been put forward (see Lee & Simon, 2004;Magill & Hall, 1990, for reviews): the elaboration hypothesis (Shea & Morgan, 1979;Shea & Zimny, 1983, 1988 and the reconstruction hypothesis (Lee & Magill, 1983, 1985. Based upon Battig's original work (1972Battig's original work ( , 1979, Shea and colleagues proposed that random practice forces the learner to engage in more elaborate and distinctive processing, such as intertask comparisons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, although task similarity has been found to increase the CI effect in the verbal skill literature, there is modest evidence so far about the potential learning benefits of task similarity in the motor domain. Wood and Ging (1991) have done work based on this premise, following earlier work by Shea and Zimny (1988). They defined task similarity as a function of the spatial characteristics of three movement patterns to be reproduced: different sizes of letter "N" were considered as similar;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference: Contributions of practice schedule, task similarity and amount of practice

Boutin

Blandin²

2010

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment was designed to assess the combined influence of practice schedule (blocked or random), task similarity (similar or dissimilar), and amount of practice on motor learning. Participants were required to perform three movement times (200, 350, and 500ms) in a blocked or random schedule while pointing towards the target located in the front direction in the similar condition, or towards three targets (left, front, and right) in the dissimilar condition. In each condition, participants completed 99 or 297 acquisition trials before a delayed retention test similar for all participants. Results indicated a contextual interference (CI) effect due to the schedule of practice following 297 trials for similar task variations: blocked schedule tended to produce better performance early in practice; random schedule enhanced learning for a larger amount of practice. However, when participants experienced dissimilar task variations, no blocked-random difference was found whatever the amount of practice. This suggests that task similarity is a learning variable that modulates the CI effect. Our findings argue for the evidence that the intertask processing evoked by random schedule is not sufficient to improve learning and that there may be a ceiling effect on retention performance due to the extent of additional intertask processing.

show abstract

Chapter 12 Knowledge Incorporation in Motor Representation

Cited by 59 publications

References 39 publications

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

Too Much of a Good Thing: Random Practice Scheduling and Self-Control of Feedback Lead to Unique but Not Additive Learning Benefits

On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference: Contributions of practice schedule, task similarity and amount of practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About