Practice Scheduling in Motor Learning

Practice Scheduling in Motor Learning

Adams’ Closed Loop Theory of Motor Learning

StandardStandard

Error DetectorError Detector

Motor Motor OrganizationOrganization

OutputOutput

AcquisitionAcquisition RetentionRetention TransferTransfer

Learning ParadigmLearning Paradigm

Retention Paradigms

Retention

RecognitionRecognition RecallRecall

CuedCued Uncued Uncued or Freeor Free

Evolution of motor learning theory

Evolution of motor learning theory

• Schema theory was Schmidt’s (1975) response to Adams’ (1971) model of motor learning.

• Adams proposed a closed loop model, with specific traces for movement and feedback.

• Schmidt criticized Adam’s model based on two notions: storage and novelty.

• Adams’ model was restricted to linear positioning tasks, limited generalizability.

Schema TheorySchema Theory

• In schema theory two memory states are hypothesized. They are: recall and recognition. The terms recall and recognition are taken from the verbal learning literature.

Initial ConditionsInitial Conditions

Desired OutcomeDesired Outcome

PastPastActualActualOutcomesOutcomes

Rec

all

Rec

all

Sch

ema

Sch

ema

Rec

ogni

tion

Rec

ogni

tion

Sch

ema

Sch

ema

PastPastSensorySensory

ConsequencesConsequences

PastPastResponseResponse

SpecificationsSpecifications

ResponseResponseSpecificationsSpecifications

ExpectedExpectedSensorySensoryConsequencesConsequences

Schmidt (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor learning. Schmidt (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor learning. Psychological Psychological Review, 82,Review, 82,225-260.225-260.

Four things are stored to satisfy the goal of the movement:

Four things are stored to satisfy the goal of the movement:

• Initial Conditions

• Response Specifications

• Sensory Consequences

• Response Outcome

The major hypothesis generated in schema theory is

the variability of practice hypothesis, one of the most tested hypotheses in motor

learning literature.

The major hypothesis generated in schema theory is

the variability of practice hypothesis, one of the most tested hypotheses in motor

learning literature.

Acquisition phase of the paradigm used to

test the variability of practice hypothesis Acquisition phase of the paradigm used to

test the variability of practice hypothesis Constant Practice AAA..., AAA..., AAA…

Variable Practice

Blocked AAA…, BBB…, CCC…

Random BAC…, CBA…, ACB…

Serial ABC…, ABC…, ABC…

Retention and transfer phases of the paradigm

Retention and transfer phases of the paradigm

• Transfer has been tested with tasks both within and outside the range of the already practiced tasks.

• Both retention and transfer have been tested.

• Several studies have examined the effect of variability of practice on performance of children.

Schmidt’s predictionsSchmidt’s predictions

• Transfer is better to tasks within the range of the originally practiced tasks.

• Variable practice produces better transfer than constant practice.

Schema theory still provides impetus Schema theory still provides impetus for research on the concept of a for research on the concept of a generalized motor program.generalized motor program.

Gentile (1972, 1987) also supported a variable practice structure for latter stages of learning and for skills that have changing features, such as: open skills and closed skills with intertrial variability.

Levels of Processing FrameworkCraik & Lockhart (1972)

• Meaningfulness (Depth of Processing)

• Elaboration (Breadth of Processing)

• Distinctiveness

• Familiarity

• Encoding Retrieval Specificity

Levels of processing theoryCraik & Lockhart (1972)

Levels of processing theoryCraik & Lockhart (1972)

• New view of memory research

• Different from existing and traditional views of memory

• Viewed the subject as active in the processing of information

Original hypothesis was presented in the Intratask Interference Theory (Battig,1966) Original hypothesis was presented in the

Intratask Interference Theory (Battig,1966)

Intratask interference leads to intertask facilitation.

Battig’s (1979) Contextual interference hypothesis

Battig’s (1979) Contextual interference hypothesis

• Factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to the task being learned will affect the interference created, i.e., context became the key component in his hypothesis.

• In 1979, Battig brought his theory in line with the levels of processing framework.

Contextual interferenceContextual interference

• Random practice, high contextual interference, is produced by presenting tasks in an unpredictable order of trials. In a random practice structure, subjects are required to recreate the memory trace trial after trial.

• Blocked practice, low contextual interference, is produced by presenting all trials of one task before proceeding onto the next task. In a blocked practice structure subjects may hold the memory trace in short-term memory for the next trial of practice.

AcquisitionAcquisition RetentionRetention

Per

form

ance

Per

form

ance

PoorPoor

GoodGood

RandomRandom

BlockedBlocked

A hypothetical model of the paradoxical effect predicted A hypothetical model of the paradoxical effect predicted in contextual interference theory (Battig, 1979). in contextual interference theory (Battig, 1979).

Shea & Morgan (1979)Shea & Morgan (1979)

• Shea & Morgan were the first to apply the concept of contextual interference to motor skills research.

• They provided the paradigm for testing context effects in an acquisition, retention, and transfer paradigm.

AcquisitionAcquisition

Blocked RandomBlocked Random

BL RA BL RABL RA BL RA

Retention and transfer tests occurred following a 10 minuteRetention and transfer tests occurred following a 10 minuteinterval, and a second delayed retention test occurred interval, and a second delayed retention test occurred following a 10 day retention interval.following a 10 day retention interval.

BLBL RARA BL RA BL RA BL RABL RA BL RA BL RA

RetentionRetention

TransferTransfer

Shea & Zimny (1983, 1988)Shea & Zimny (1983, 1988)

• Contextual interference caused by random practice produces greater elaboration of memory for a particular category of tasks.

• Shea & Zimny explained the contextual interference effect through a processing view in which multiple and varied processing strategies are used in short-term or working memory. Thus processing in a random condition forces more elaborate and distinctive traces than a blocked condition.

• Shea & Zimny (1983) stated that conditions of high contextual interference or high intertask variability leads to increased retention “… especially when the original learning is changed (p.361).

Lee (1987) and Lee & Magill (1983, 1985)

Lee (1987) and Lee & Magill (1983, 1985)

• Lee, and Lee and Magill proposed that forgetting from short-term or working memory occurs between trials, and thus reconstruction of the action plan occurs trial after trial.

Meeusen (1987)Meeusen (1987)

• The retroactive inhibition literature helps to explain the contextual interference effect through a discussion of the implications of blocked practice on retention and transfer.