Motor Control and Learning in the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity (NASPSPA): The First 40 Years

Abstract

By 1967, motor control and learning researchers had adopted an information processing (IP) approach. Central to that research was understanding how movement information was processed, coded, stored, and represented in memory. It also was centered on understanding motor control and learning in terms of Fitts’ law, closed-loop and schema theories, motor programs, contextual interference, modeling, mental practice, attentional focus, and how practice and augmented feedback could be organized to optimize learning. Our constraints-based research from the 1980s into the 2000s searched for principles of “self-organization”, and answers to the degrees-of-freedom problem, that is, how the human motor system with so many independent parts could be controlled without the need for an executive decision maker as proposed by the IP approach. By 2007 we were thinking about where the IP and constraints-based views were divergent and complementary, and whether neural-based models could bring together the behavior and biological mechanisms underlying the processes of motor control and learning.

Development of Traditional Sports-Based through Educational Tourism Model: Edu Ortrad as a Sports Industry Model

“…Hence, to ease, build and excel in such physically skillful movements, any interested individual must be trained and passed through three staple stages, such as 1) the cognitive phase, 2) the associative phase, and 3) the automatic phase [12]. The first phase stands for understanding what to do, especially for the new learner [13]; [14]. In other words, it would be difficult for someone to learn a skill without receiving any prior knowledge about it, whether that knowledge is visual or verbal.…”

The effect of single-task training on learning transfer to a novel bimanual task

“…Previous studies have established a reasonable understanding of contextual interference effect (Christina, 2017;Gabriele et al, 1989;Pauwels et al, 2014;Shea & Morgan, 1979) but a number of studies have reported contradictory results (Buszard, Reid, Krause, Kovalchik, & Farrow, 2017;Caramiaux, Bevilacqua, Wanderley, & Palmer, 2018;Moretto, Marcori, & Okazaki, 2018;Russell & Newell, 2007). The contextual interference effect requires the practice of multiple variations of a task (Magill & Hall, 1990) and thus, the retention and transfer of learning effects were significantly higher in multi-task practice as compared to single-task practice (Maslovat et al, 2004).…”