Learning a Motor Skill: Effects of Blocked Versus Random Practice a Review

Abstract

Procedural learning refers to the ability to learn new perceptual, motor or cognitive skills. While many studies have explored procedural learning abilities in patients with different types of brain damage, the cognitive mechanisms involved in the acquisition of a new skill are still not well understood. The present review focuses on the conditions that optimise skill acquisition, and more specifically on the contextual interference effect (CIE), which refers to the advantage of a 'random' over a 'blocked' practice condition in skill learning tasks. According to both the 'elaboration' and 'reconstruction' hypotheses, the CIE can be explained by the fact that the random schedule requires more cognitive activity than the blocked one. However, if the CIE has been consistently demonstrated in laboratory studies, it is not so clear in field-based studies. We discuss this 'laboratory and field dilemma', and suggest that two main factors -task complexity and individual variables -may explain the discrepancy between the two types of studies.

Contextual Interference Effect on Perceptual–Cognitive Skills Training

“…However, on retention and transfer tests, the random practice group had a signifi cantly faster total movement time compared to the blocked group, indicating superior learning and the Cl effect (31). The Cl effect has been replicated in many studies examining motor skill tasks across various contexts, as described in several re view articles (20,25,28).Two main theories have been forwarded to explain the Cl effect. First, the reconstruction hypothesis proposes that a random practice order leads to interference between the tasks being practiced, causing them to be forgotten in the short term between trials.…”

Come to think of it: Contributions of reasoning abilities and training schedule to skill acquisition in a virtual throwing task

“…Previous research suggests, that complex tasks might cause overload in participants, when paired with demand-enhancing CI (Merbah & Meulemans, 2011;Wulf & Shea, 2002). Thus, in the present study we investigated the effects of CI and inductive reasoning ability in a motor learning task, to test whether reasoning abilities modulate skill acquisition and CI effects.…”

“…Despite a comparatively large sample and extensive training across 315 trials, we found no significant main effects of CI in our study, neither in training, nor retention and transfer. Merbah and Meulemans (2011) pointed out that CI in complex tasks is beneficial if the task affords parameter adaptation instead of requiring multiple motor programs. Parameter adaptation is considered to be easier than multiple motor program learning, which may be disrupted by CI due to accumulating task demands.…”

“…Furthermore, in simple tasks, CI effects are most consistent when motor programs vary, that is, when movements from different classes need to be learned. In contrast, in complex tasks the CI effect is more stable when different parameters of the same motor program need to be implemented; in complex tasks requiring motor programs from different classes might result in overload (Merbah & Meulemans, 2011).…”

“…Newell, 2003). Among others, it was criticized for being unable to explain practice order effects, for example, of presenting task variants during training block-wise or randomized (Merbah & Meulemans, 2011;C. H. Shea & Wulf, 2005).…”