Cognitive underpinnings of contextual interference during motor learning

The reported study examined the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference (CI) in motor learning. This experiment was designed to assess the combined influence of practice schedule (blocked or random) and task similarity (similar or dissimilar) on acquisition and retention performance. Participants (N = 60) learned a set of three variations of a timing task according to a similar (900, 1000 and 1100 ms) or dissimilar parameter condition (700, 1000 and 1300 ms) with either a blocked or random practice order: this resulted in 4 experimental groups. Performance in delayed retention demonstrated a typical CI effect due to the schedule of practice for the dissimilar parameter condition with the random practice group outperforming the blocked practice group. Conversely, no blocked-random difference was found for the similar parameter condition. These findings lend support for the reconstruction hypothesis by showing that supplementing random practice with additional intertask elaboration (i.e., similar parameter condition) did not facilitate subsequent retention performance.     

The Effect of Practice Schedule on Context-Dependent Learning

It is well established that random practice compared to blocked practice enhances motor learning. Additionally, while information in the environment may be incidental, learning is also enhanced when an individual performs a task within the same environmental context in which the task was originally practiced. This study aimed to disentangle the effects of practice schedule and incidental/environmental context on motor learning. Participants practiced three finger sequences under either a random or blocked practice schedule. Each sequence was associated with specific incidental context (i.e., color and location on the computer screen) during practice. The participants were tested under the conditions when the sequence-context associations remained the same or were changed from that of practice. When the sequence-context association was changed, the participants who practiced under blocked schedule demonstrated greater performance decrement than those who practiced under random schedule. The findings suggested that those participants who practiced under random schedule were more resistant to the change of environmental context.     

Contextual interference effects in sequence learning for young and older adults

Practice of different tasks in a random order induces better retention than practicing them in a blocked order, a phenomenon known as the contextual interference (CI) effect. Our purpose was to investigate whether the CI effect exists in sequence learning, such that practicing different sequences in a random order will result in better learning of sequences than practicing them in blocks, and whether this effect is affected by aging. Subjects practiced a serial reaction time task where a set of three 4-element sequences were arranged in blocks or in a random order on 2 successive days. Subjects were divided into 4 groups based on a 2-GROUP (young or old) by 2-ORDER (random or blocked practice) between-subject design. Three days after practice (Day 5), subjects were tested with practiced and novel sequences to evaluate sequence-specific learning. The results replicate the CI effect in sequence learning in both young and older adults. Older adults retained sequences better when trained in a random condition than in a blocked condition, although the random condition incurs greater task switching costs in older adults during practice. Our study underscores the distinction between age-related effects on learning vs. performance, and offers practical implications for enhancing skill learning in older adults.     

The Influence of Reminder Trials on Contextual Interference Effects

Two experiments investigated the proposition of the elaboration explanation for contextual interference that more than one task is present in working memory when multiple tasks are practiced in a random schedule but that only one task is present in working memory when multiple tasks are practiced in a blocked schedule. Three motor tasks were performed as fast as possible in either a random or blocked practice schedule. At the end of practice, a reminder trial for each task was either given or not given. Acquisition performance was slower for the random practice conditions than for the blocked practice conditions. Retention performance was faster for the random practice conditions than for the blocked practice condition that did not receive a reminder trial for each task. Importantly, performance differences were not found between the random practice conditions and the blocked practice condition that did receive a reminder trial for each task. A blocked practice condition with a beneficial acquisition and reminder task order pairing performed faster during both acquisition and retention than a comparable random practice condition. Reminder trials can facilitate detailing of task characteristics, and their effectiveness is determined by the elapsed time and number of intervening tasks during acquisition and retention.     

The influence of reminder trials on contextual interference effects

Two experiments investigated the proposition of the elaboration explanation for contextual interference that more than one task is present in working memory when multiple tasks are practiced in a random schedule but that only one task is present in working memory when multiple tasks are practiced in a blocked schedule. Three motor tasks were performed as fast as possible in either a random or blocked practice schedule. At the end of practice, a reminder trial for each task was either given or not given. Acquisition performance was slower for the random practice conditions than for the blocked practice conditions. Retention performance was faster for the random practice conditions than for the blocked practice condition that did not receive a reminder trial for each task. Importantly, performance differences were not found between the random practice conditions and the blocked practice condition that did receive a reminder trial for each task. A blocked practice condition with a beneficial acquisition and reminder task order pairing performed faster during both acquisition and retention than a comparable random practice condition. Reminder trials can facilitate detailing of task characteristics, and their effectiveness is determined by the elapsed time and number of intervening tasks during acquisition and retention.     

The variability of practice hypothesis in motor learning: does it apply to Alzheimer's disease?

Based on Schmidt's (1975) variability of practice hypothesis, this study examined acquisition and transfer of a gross motor skill, namely tossing, in 58 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 58 healthy older adults under constant, blocked, and random practice conditions. While healthy older adults were able to learn the tossing task equally well under the three practice conditions, only AD patients receiving constant practice showed significant improvements. Tests of intermediate transfer yielded the expected random practice advantage in healthy controls but not AD patients. None of the practice conditions facilitated intermediate transfer in AD patients; however, constant practice did benefit these impaired individuals on tests of near transfer. These results indicate that the variability of practice hypothesis does not extend to AD patients. As motor learning and transfer were clearly a function of constant practice, future attempts to retrain basic activities of daily living in AD patients should emphasize consistency in training.     

A noted on the relationship between task requirements and the contextual interference effect

Typically, tasks used in past contextual interference experiments had movement, spatial pattern, or timing requirements. The possibility exists that the blocked/random manipulation of only one of these task characteristics contributes to the contextual interference effect. The purpose of the experiment reported here was to test the impact of separate movement and timing tasks on the superior learning of random trained groups. The task for all subjects in the movement condition was to release a start button and knock over a wooden barrier. There were three movement goals to be learned. Half of the subjects in this condition practiced the three movements in a blocked schedule and half practiced them in a random schedule. The subjects in the no-movement condition estimated the same three times by holding down the start button for the appropriate duration. Similarly, these subjects were divided into random and blocked practice groups. All subjects then performed a retention test. Results showed that for the movement condition, the blocked group performed with less error than the random group during acquisition. In retention, however, the random group performed with less error than the blocked group. conversely, for the no-movement condition, there were no differences between the two practice schedule groups during acquisition or during retention for any of the dependent measures. These results indicated that experimental tasks must have some type of movement requirement in order to facilitate learning through the use of random practice schedules.     

A Note on the Relationship Between Task Requirements and the Contextual Interference Effect

Typically, tasks used in past contextual interference experiments had movement, spatial pattern, or timing requirements. The possibility exists that the blocked/random manipulation of only one of these task characteristics contributes to the contextual interference effect. The purpose of the experiment reported here was to test the impact of separate movement and timing tasks on the superior learning of random trained groups. The task for all subjects in the movement condition was to release a start button and knock over a wooden barrier. There were three movement time goals to be learned. Half of the subjects in this condition practiced the three movements in a blocked schedule and half practiced them in a random schedule. The subjects in the no-movement condition estimated the same three times by holding down the start button for the appropriate duration. Similarly, these subjects were divided into random and blocked practice groups. All subjects then performed a retention test. Results showed that for the movement condition, the blocked group performed with less error than the random group during acquisition. In retention, however, the random group performed with less error than the blocked group. Conversely, for the no-movement condition, there were no differences between the two practice schedule groups during acquisition or during retention for any of the dependent measures. These results indicate that experimental tasks must have some type of movement requirement in order to facilitate learning through the use of random practice schedules.     

Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning

Variability in practice has been shown to enhance motor skill learning. Benefits of practice variability have been attributed to motor schema formation (variable versus constant practice), or more effortful information processing (random versus blocked practice). We hypothesized that, among other mechanisms, greater practice variability might promote an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect, while less variability would be more conducive to a less effective internal focus on body movements. In Experiment 1, the learning of a throwing task was enhanced by variable versus constant practice, and variable group participants reported focusing more on the distance to the target (external focus), while constant group participants focused more on their posture (internal focus). In Experiment 2, golf putting was learned more effectively with a random compared with a blocked practice schedule. Furthermore, random group learners reported using a more effective distal external focus (i.e., distance to the target) to a greater extent, whereas blocked group participants used a less effective proximal focus (i.e., putter) more often. While attentional focus was assessed through questionnaires in the first two experiments, learners in Experiment 3 were asked to report their current attentional focus at any time during practice. Again, the learning of a throwing task was more effective after random relative to blocked practice. Also, random practice learners reported using more external focus cues, while in blocked practice participants used more internal focus cues. The findings suggest that the attentional foci induced by different practice schedules might be at least partially responsible for the learning differences.     

Role of Constant,Random and Blocked Practice in an Electromyography-Based Oral Motor Learning Task

Purpose: The role of principles of motor learning (PMLs) in speech has received much attention in the past decade. Oral motor learning, however, has not received similar consideration. This study evaluated the role of three practice conditions in an oral motor tracking task.

Method: Forty-five healthy adult participants were randomly and equally assigned to one of three practice conditions (constant, blocked, and random) and participated in an electromyography-based task. The study consisted of four sessions, at one session a day for four consecutive days. The first three days sessions included a practice phase, with immediate visual feedback, and an immediate retention phase, without visual feedback. The fourth session did not include practice, but only delayed retention testing, lasting 10–15 minutes, without visual feedback.

Results: Random group participants performed better than participants in constant and blocked practice conditions on all the four days. Constant group participants demonstrated superior learning over blocked group participants only on day 4.

Conclusion: Findings indicate that random practice facilitates oral motor learning, which is in line with limb/speech motor learning literature. Future research should systematically investigate the outcomes of random practice as a function of different oral and speech-based tasks.     

On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning

The main goal of the present study was to determine whether observation of an unskilled model learning a timing task enables the observer to develop a cognitive representation of the task similar to the one acquired through physical practice (Adams, 1986; Bandura, 1977; Lee & White, 1990). To reach that goal, we tested whether a contextual interference effect would be obtained in a retention test of subjects who had observed an individual practicing three variations of a timing task under a random or a blocked schedule of practice. Similar patterns of results in an immediate retention test were found following observation and physical practice. This suggests that observation indeed engaged the observers in the same type of cognitive activities as did physical practice. Moreover, a schedule of practice made up of 100% physical practice led to improved learning compared with a schedule of practice made up of 50% observation followed by 50% physical practice. This suggests that learning is enhanced more by numerous implementations of a motor program than by its mere construction or retrieval.     

Contextual Interference in Motor Learning: Dissociated Effects Due to the Nature of Task Variations

The contextual interference effect in motor learning refers to the interference that results from practising a task within the concept of other tasks in a practice session. Several studies have shown that practice under conditions of high contextual interference (i.e. with a random practice order) degrades performance during acquisition trials, compared to low contextual interference conditions (i.e. with a blocked order, where practice is completed on one task before practice on another task is undertaken). In contrast to acquisition performance, random practice usually leads to more effective learning than blocked practice, as measured by retention and transfer tests. One of the hypotheses regarding the effect suggests that a random practice schedule induces more extensive planning operations during practice than a blocked practice condition. If so, then differences between these two conditions should emerge to the degree that the set of tasks requires complete reconstruction of these planning operations on each trial. To address this issue, we compared four groups of subjects: a blocked and random group that practised three timing tasks that shared a common characteristic (same relative timing), and a blocked and random group that practised three tasks that each had different relative timing structures. Subjects practised these tasks on each of two days, with a retention test and two transfer tests that required either a relative timing structure that had been practised previously or had not previously been practised. No random/ blocked differences occurred regardless of the relative timing of the patterns during acquisition or retention. However, for both transfer tests, random practice enhanced learning only for the group that had practised with tasks that each had different relative timing during acquisition. Implications of these results for an explanation of contextual interference are discussed.     

Variability of Practice and Contextual Interference in Motor Skill Learning

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether learning benefits in multiple-task learning situations are a result of contextual interference or of schema enhancement related to the amount of variability in the practice session. Two experiments were designed that replicated and extended the experiment reported by Wulf and Schmidt (1988). In a 2 (same vs. different relative time) x 2 (blocked vs. random practice schedule) design, 48 right-handed subjects were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. A tapping task was employed that required a right-handed tap of three small brass plates arranged in a diamond pattern. Each segment had a specific time requirement. Target times and response times were provided on a computer screen directly in front of the subject. Each subject participated in two acquisition sessions (i.e., 198 practice trials) and was tested for learning on several different retention and transfer tests. In Experiment 2, a control group was added that received no acquisition phase. Results of both experiments showed a typical contextual interference effect, with depressed scores by the random groups during acquisition but significantly better scores than the blocked groups on several retention and transfer tests. Certain characteristics of the tests were found to influence the demonstration of the practice schedule effects. These results were consistent with predictions from Magill and Hall (1990) that the learning benefits of contextual interference are more likely to occur when skill variations are from different classes of movement and that the amount of variability in practice is more influential when the to-be-learned tasks are parameter modifications of the same generalized motor program.     

Effects of contextual interference on feeding training in patients with stroke

The contextual interference (CI) effect of motor skill has been demonstrated through numerous studies. However, few studies have reported on daily living tasks in patients with stroke. This study investigated the CI effect on spooning training in such patients. Fourteen right hemiparetic patients with stroke were assigned to one of two groups: a group with a random practice schedule or a group with a blocked practice schedule. The spooning task involved scooping go stones from a bowl 30 cm away in 3 different directions to a bowl in front of the patient. We evaluated the acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor learning for spooning. The transfer was evaluated while participants ate cereal in a bowl with a spoon. Upper extremity function, defined as far-transfer, was also evaluated using the box-and-block test. In the retention test, no significant difference between random and blocked practice groups was shown, although both groups showed differences between pre-test and post-test movement times. However, in the transfer test, the random practice group had a significantly shorter movement time than the blocked practice group and also revealed improvement between the pre- and follow-up tests. Additionally, in the far-transfer test, there were significant differences between the pre- and post-, and pre- and follow-up tests only in the random practice group. These findings show that the benefits of CI for transfer can be applied to the learning of feeding skills in patients with stroke and that although the blocked practice is also partially beneficial to long-lasting skill learning in a treatment setting, it may not be efficient under changed conditions. We also suggest the possibility that feeding training with the CI effect could apply to not only transfer but also to far-transfer.     

Influence of practice schedules and attention on skill development and retention

Focus of attention during dual-tasks and practice schedules are important components of motor skill performance and learning; often studied in isolation. The current study required participants to complete a simple key-pressing task under a blocked or random practice schedule. To manipulate attention, participants reported their finger position (i.e., skill-focused attention) or the pitch of an auditory tone (i.e., extraneous attention) while performing two variations of a dual-task key-pressing task. Analyses were conducted at baseline, 10 min and 24 h after acquisition. The results revealed that participants in a blocked schedule, extraneous focus condition had significantly faster movement times during retention compared to a blocked schedule, skill focus condition. Furthermore, greatest improvements from baseline to immediate and delayed retention were evident for an extraneous attention compared to the skill-focused attention, regardless of practice schedule. A discussion of the unique benefits an extraneous focus of attention may have on the learning process during dual-task conditions is presented.     

Dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning benefit

Giving learners control over their feedback schedule has been shown to enhance motor learning. This effect has been attributed to enhanced intrinsic motivation via fulfilling learners’ needs for feelings of autonomy and competence, and greater information processing through provoking learners to estimate their errors. However, there is a lack of studies dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning effect. To address this shortcoming, we crossed self-controlled feedback and error estimation in the same experimental design in the largest pre-registered self-control study to date (N = 200). Participants performed a nondominant arm bean bag tossing task under one of four training conditions in which feedback schedule was either controlled by the participant or matched to a counterpart and error estimation was either mandatory or not enforced. Learning was assessed 24 h after the acquisition phase in retention and transfer tests. Results showed no statistically significant learning advantage for participants given control over feedback despite promoting spontaneous error estimation, and, surprisingly, results showed a disadvantage specific to the transfer test for participants obligated to estimate their errors. Further, although self-control over feedback resulted in its delivery on relatively accurate trials and slightly increased learners’ perceived autonomy, it did not enhance perceived competence or intrinsic motivation. At the individual level, however, intrinsic motivation did predict motor learning. The present study challenges the benefit of self-controlled feedback while supporting the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on motor learning.     

Age-related differences and the role of augmented visual feedback in learning a bimanual coordination pattern

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of aging and the role of augmented visual information in the acquisition of a new bimanual coordination pattern, namely a 90° relative phase pattern. In a pilot study, younger and older adults received augmented visual feedback in the form of a real-time orthogonal display of both limb movements after every fifth trial. Younger adults acquired this task over three days of practice and retained the task well over periods of one week and one month of no practice while the older adults showed no improvement at all on the task. It was hypothesized that the amount of augmented information was not sufficient for the older adults to overcome the strong tendency to perform natural, intrinsically stable coordination patterns, which consequently prevented them from learning the task. The present study evaluated the age-related role of augmented visual feedback for learning the new pattern. Participants were randomly assigned within age groups to receive either concurrent or terminal visual feedback after every trial in acquisition. In contrast to the pilot study, all of the older adults learned the pattern, although not to the same level as the younger adults. Both younger and older adults benefitted from concurrent visual feedback, but the older adults gained more from the concurrent feedback than the younger adults, relative to terminal feedback conditions. The results suggest that when learning bimanual coordination patterns, older adults are more sensitive to the structure of the practice conditions, particularly the availability of concurrent visual information. This greater sensitivity to the learning environment may reflect a diminished capacity for inhibitory control and a decreased ability to focus attention on the salient aspects of learning the task.     

Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults

Since the publication of Schmidt's (1975) schema theory of motor learning, numerous studies have assessed the variability of practice hypothesis. Of these, only research using children as subjects has provided consistent results. Findings from adult studies have been equivocal. Two experiments were conducted to assess the possibility that the schedule of variable practice during acquisition may be a clue to this equivocality, since only experiments (using adults as subjects) that have provide random variability of practice conditions have consistently supported the tenets of schema theory. Using a two movement rapid timing task, subjects learned to control their actions under one (constant) or four (variable) parameters, with variable practice conducted under either a blocked or a randomized schedule. Results for variable error and absolute constant error showed that random-variable practice provided strong support for the schema theory prediction, whereas blocked-variable practice provided only relatively weak support. Two contrasting implications of these results are discussed with respect to support versus non-support for Schmidt' schema theory.     

Retroactive interference and mental practice effects on motor performance: a pilot study

This study examined the effect of similar versus dissimilar retroactive interference on the mental practice effects for performing a novel motor skill. Research has shown that mental practice of a motor task can interfere with learning and performance of the task; however, little is known about how different retroactive interference activities affect mental practice effects. 90 volunteers ages 18 to 51 years (M=26.8, SD=9.6) completed a pre-test and post-test of 10 sets of five trials of a throwing task with the non-preferred hand. In the practice phase, participants mentally practiced the throwing task and then mentally practiced a task that was similar, dissimilar, or completed an unrelated reading task. Performance for all groups improved from pre- to post-test; however, there were no differences in increases for the three groups. The findings suggest that mental practice of similar and dissimilar tasks produced no significant interference in performance.     

Age-related differences in strategy knowledge updating: blocked testing produces greater improvements in metacognitive accuracy for younger than older adults

Age-related differences in updating knowledge about strategy effectiveness after task experience have not been consistently found, perhaps because the magnitude of observed knowledge updating has been rather meager for both age groups. We examined whether creating homogeneous blocks of recall tests based on two strategies used at encoding (imagery and repetition) would enhance people's learning about strategy effects on recall. Younger and older adults demonstrated greater knowledge updating (as measured by questionnaire ratings of strategy effectiveness and by global judgments of performance) with blocked (versus random) testing. The benefit of blocked testing for absolute accuracy of global predictions was smaller for older than younger adults. However, individual differences in correlations of strategy effectiveness ratings and postdictions showed similar upgrades for both age groups. Older adults learn about imagery's superior effectiveness but do not accurately estimate the magnitude of its benefit, even after blocked testing.