Contextual Interference in Complex Bimanual Skill Learning Leads to Better Skill Persistence

Abstract

The contextual interference (CI) effect is a robust phenomenon in the (motor) skill learning literature. However, CI has yielded mixed results in complex task learning. The current study addressed whether the CI effect is generalizable to bimanual skill learning, with a focus on the temporal evolution of memory processes. In contrast to previous studies, an extensive training schedule, distributed across multiple days of practice, was provided. Participants practiced three frequency ratios across three practice days following either a blocked or random practice schedule. During the acquisition phase, better overall performance for the blocked practice group was observed, but this difference diminished as practice progressed. At immediate and delayed retention, the random practice group outperformed the blocked practice group, except for the most difficult frequency ratio. Our main finding is that the random practice group showed superior performance persistence over a one week time interval in all three frequency ratios compared to the blocked practice group. This study contributes to our understanding of learning, consolidation and memory of complex motor skills, which helps optimizing training protocols in future studies and rehabilitation settings.

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

“…1). For motor learning this finding is robust having been observed for a wide variety of laboratory tasks (Pauwels, Swinnen, & Beets, 2014;Shea & Morgan, 1979; and in many applied situations (Goode & Magill, 1986;Ollis, Button, & Fairweather, 2005;Smith & Davies, 1995). The efficacy of a high CI practice schedule for improved retention and transfer benefit has been demonstrated for a variety of subject populations (Del Rey, 1982;Porretta & Obrien, 1991), and has been used in the clinical domain with some success (Adams & Page, 2000;Knock, Ballard, Robin, & Schmidt, 2000;Wambaugh, Nessler, Wright, & Mauszycki, 2014).…”

“…As noted in the previous section, the type of motor skills that have been the subject of many of the experimental efforts to evaluate the impact of CI for motor learning is quite varied (Pauwels et al, 2014;Shea & Morgan, 1979;Wright et al, 2005). Nonetheless, most of the basic and applied work has involved motor sequence learning.…”

“…Indeed, there is growing evidence suggesting that explicit and implicit learning strategies adopted during motor learning are distinct and supported by unique neural circuits (Grafton, Hazeltine, & Ivry, 1995;Hikosaka et al, 1999;Hikosaka, Nakamura, Sakai, & Nakahara, 2002). We know of only a few studies that have specifically manipulated CI during implicit motor sequence learning either directly (Rendell, Masters, & Farrow, 2009;Sekiya, 2006;Song, Sharma, Buch, & Cohen, 2012) or indirectly (Pauwels et al, 2014). As such, it is acknowledged that the relevance of this work pertains to the influence of CI during motor sequence learning that occurs via the explicit system.…”

“…If this is the case, it is possible that inducing greater CI might offer some advantage even when learning different classes of motor skills such as motor adaptation that rely on the recruitment of distinct neural circuitry (Doyon et al, 2009). At this time, evidence for widespread efficacy of greater CI beyond motor sequence tasks is quite limited (Pauwels et al, 2014;Sekiya, 2006;Song et al, 2012;Tsutsui, Lee, & Hodges, 1998). Examining the pervasiveness of the CI effect across skills that have diverse sensorimotor demands, such as visual/dynamic adaptation or bimanual coordination, warrants more rigorous experimental attention in the future.…”

Contextual interference effects on motor skill acquisition, retention and transfer in sport rifle shooting

“…Wu and colleagues [2] found greater performance and learning with higher cI practice in a laboratory task which required only elbow joint move ment. Similarly, both Meira, Fairbrother and Perez [3] and Paulwels, Swinnen and Beets [4] reported better retention levels of a motor skill when practice varied more despite poorer initial performance during the acquisition phase.…”