Transfer of Movement Components in a Motor Learning Task

Lersten, Kenneth C.

doi:10.1080/10671188.1968.10616582

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A conclus~on that the audience affected initial performance but had a negligible effect on learning (over the second set of 15 trials) appears warranted. This finding is similar to those related to a number of other variables: massed vs dstributed practice schedules (Carron, 1969;Stelrnach, 19691, part vs whole presentation (Lersten, 1968;Schmidt & Young, 1987), random vs blocked schedules (Shea & Morgan, 1979;Lee & Magd, 1983), and knowledge of results (Laverty, 1962;Shea Pr Opton, 1976). Further, the data indicate the presence of the commonly observed reminiscence effect, i.e., recovery or improvement in performance in the absence of practice following rest, between Trials 15 and 16 in Session 2 (see Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Effect of An Audience on Learning a Novel Motor Skill

Sawyer

Noel

2000

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess effects of an audience on learning a novel motor skill. Subjects (N=64) were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions and administered 15 30-sec. trials with 30 sec. intertrial periods on a pursuit rotor task on two different days. Comparison of Time-on Target performance between conditions indicated that the No Audience condition had significantly higher performance than the Audience condition in Session 1. Comparison of Absolute Retention and Final Retention scores among the four experimental conditions in Session 2 after 48 hr. yielded no significant differences attributable to the presence of an audience, thus supporting the hypothesis that an audience would have no effect on learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Effect of An Audience on Learning a Novel Motor Skill

Sawyer

Noel

2000

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Part practice was more effective for serial tasks with low organization, and whole practice was more effective for serial tasks with high organization. Schmidt and Wrisberg (2008) also suggested that whole practice is more effective for discrete tasks based on a study by Lersten (1968). In this study, predictions about discrete tasks were not tested due to the lack of studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Whole and Part Practice: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor learning textbooks provide specific recommendations for the use of whole and part practice during motor skill acquisition. Magill recommended basing decisions on Naylor and Briggs' hypothesis of task complexity and organization, while Schmidt and Wrisberg recommended basing decisions on skill classification. To evaluate the accuracy of these recommendations, a meta-analysis was conducted. Through a literature search, 44 articles were located, and 20 provided sufficient information to calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes were calculated using means for whole and part practice for acquisition and retention. Although several analyses were compromised by insufficient studies investigating whole and part practice, mean effect sizes generally supported motor learning textbooks. To better verify the empirical validity of recommendations for the use of whole and part practice, more studies are necessary.

show abstract

“…For tasks requiring rapid spatiotemporal coordination of different effectors, acquisition of the part may not transfer to the whole task, because performing the overall task may change the nature of the required motor control, especially if the whole movement is governed by a single GMP . For example, Lersten (1968) reported that practicing components of a rapid twocomponent movement did not transfer to performance of the whole movement. More recently, Hansen, Tremblay, and Elliott (2005) compared part practice and whole practice for relatively short movements.…”

Section: Movement Complexity: Simple (Part) Versus Complex (Whole)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of Motor Learning in Treatment of Motor Speech Disorders

Maas

Robin

Hula

et al. 2008

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

488

398

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence from nonspeech motor learning suggests that various principles may interact with each other and differentially affect diverse aspects of movements. Whereas few studies have directly examined these principles in speech motor (re)learning, available evidence suggests that these principles hold promise for treatment of motor speech disorders. Further research is necessary to determine which principles apply to speech motor (re)learning in impaired populations.

show abstract

Transfer of Movement Components in a Motor Learning Task

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

Effect of An Audience on Learning a Novel Motor Skill

Effect of An Audience on Learning a Novel Motor Skill

Whole and Part Practice: A Meta-Analysis

Principles of Motor Learning in Treatment of Motor Speech Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About