Enhancing Training Efficiency and Effectiveness Through the Use of Dyad Training

The authors examined the effect of inserting observation practice and undirected dialog into the rest interval between practice trials on the learning of a complex task (stabilometer). Training protocols in which learners practice in pairs (dyads) result in increases in learning efficiency, but the critical issue is the effect on learning effectiveness. Three groups of participants (n = 12 in each group) practiced maintaining their balance on a stabilometer. One group practiced individually, and the other 2 groups practiced in dyads in which 1 performer practiced the task while the other observed. In the dyad-alternate condition, participants alternated between physical, observational, and dialog practice on each trial, whereas in the dyad-control condition, subjects completed all trials on 1 form of practice (either physical or observational practice) before engaging in the other form. The results indicated that the dyad-alternate group initially performed more poorly but quickly overtook the individual group, and the performance advantage of the dyad-alternate group was maintained on the delayed retention test. When the different forms of practice were performed consecutively, as in the dyad-control group, acquisition and retention performance was generally poorer than when they were alternated. Those results suggest that one can combine the benefits of physical practice, observation, and dialog between learners in an interactive way to produce an effective and efficient learning protocol.     

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.     

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.     

Choice of practice-task order enhances golf skill learning

ObjectiveThe purpose of the present study was to examine whether supporting learners’ autonomy, by giving them a small choice (i.e., order of practice devices) while practicing a golf putting task, would enhance learning, confidence, and positive affect.DesignExperimental, between-participants, and yoked design.MethodsTwo groups of participants practiced a golf-putting task under choice or control conditions. Choice group participants selected the order of three practice devices (visual cues, auditory cues, chest bar), while control group participants had to use those devices in the same order as their yoked choice-group counterpart. Learning was assessed by a delayed retention test. In addition to putting accuracy, we measured learners’ perceived choice, confidence, and positive affect.ResultsPractice and retention performance were enhanced in the choice relative to the control group. Perceived choice, confidence, and positive affect were rated higher by choice group participants as well.ConclusionsProviding performers with a small choice during task practice had motivational benefits that resulted in enhanced learning, increased confidence, and more positive emotional responses.     

Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children

In a recent study by Chauvel, Wulf, and Maquestiaux (2015), golf putting performance was found to be affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion. Specifically, adult participants demonstrated more effective learning when they practiced with a hole that was surrounded by small circles, making it look larger, than when the hole was surrounded by large circles, making it look smaller. The present study examined whether this learning advantage would generalize to children who are assumed to be less sensitive to the visual illusion. Two groups of 10-year olds practiced putting golf balls from a distance of 2 m, with perceived larger or smaller holes resulting from the visual illusion. Self-efficacy was increased in the group with the perceived larger hole. The latter group also demonstrated more accurate putting performance during practice. Importantly, learning (i.e., delayed retention performance without the illusion) was enhanced in the group that practiced with the perceived larger hole. The findings replicate previous results with adult learners and are in line with the notion that enhanced performance expectancies are key to optimal motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).     

Contextual interference effects on the acquisition and retention of fundamental motor skills

This study was designed to examine the effect of three practice models (repetitions, random, and combined) on the acquisition and retention of fundamental motor skills. 54 girls in Grade 4 were randomly assigned to the three different practice groups who practiced three skills of ball rolling, racket striking, and ball kicking. All subjects received pretests posttests, and a 3-wk, retention test. Performance was significantly improved during practice in the three groups for the three skills. The repetitions group performed better than the other two groups at the end of practice. The contextual interference effect in retention was only shown for the racket-striking skill, in which the random group was significantly better than the repetitions and the combined groups. An attempt was made to attribute that specific result to the special characteristics of the striking skill in this study as an open skill with which subjects had a previous experience.     

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.     

Task characteristics and the contextual interference effect

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the influence of blocked and random practice on the acquisition and retention of a criterion multisegment motor task practiced alongside either two similar-distractors tasks or two different-distractors tasks. The random-practice similar-distractors group made more decision-making errors and performed the criterion task more slowly than the blocked-practice similar-distractors group during the acquisition phase. Following a brief filled retention interval, the blocked-practice similar-distractors group demonstrated a loss of acquired performance capabilities, whereas the random-practice similar-distractors group did not. The blocked- and random-practice different-distractors groups performed similarly throughout the experiment. Results are interpreted within Glenberg's component-levels theory, in which it was argued that random practice must stimulate the differential storage of multilevel contextual components associated with the multiple motor tasks being learned to produce a contextual interference effect. The theoretical and practical implications of differential storage versus nonrepetition as a function of random practice are discussed.     

That looks easy! Evidence against the benefits of an easier criterion of success for enhancing motor learning

OPTIMAL theory predicts providing learners with a relatively easier criterion of success during practice enhances motor learning through increased self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and intrinsic motivation. However, mixed results in the literature suggest this enhancement effect may be moderated by the number of successes achieved by learners practicing with the difficult criterion. To investigate this possibility, we manipulated quantity of practice to affect the absolute number of successes achieved by learners practicing with different success criteria. Eighty participants were divided into four groups and performed 50 or 100 trials of a mini-shuffleboard task. Groups practiced with either a large or a small zone of success surrounding the target. Learning was assessed 24 h after acquisition with retention and transfer tests. In terms of endpoint accuracy and precision, there were no learning or practice performance benefits of practicing with an easier criterion of success, regardless of the number of trials. This absence of a criterion of success effect was despite the efficacy of our manipulation in increasing the number of trials stopping within the zone of success, self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and, for participants with 100 trials, intrinsic motivation. An equivalence test indicated that the effect of criterion of success was small, if existent. Moreover, at the individual level, intrinsic motivation did not predict posttest or acquisition performance. There were no benefits of easing the criterion of success on pressure, effort, accrual of explicit knowledge, or conscious processing. These data challenge key tenets of OPTIMAL theory and question the efficacy of easing criterion of success for motor learning.     

Contextual interference in learning precision skills

This research studied the effect of different organisations of practice (blocked and random) on the learning of three different types of throwing. 35 male students practiced three precise throws for 3 wk. Initially the subjects were separated into two groups who trained under different conditions of practice (blocked and random). All subjects improved significantly from initial performance, with both blocked practice and random practice. At the end of acquisition no differences were found between the groups. No significant differences were found on retention tests carried out 48 hr., 4 wk., and 8 wk. after the training period.     

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.     

Now you see me,now you don’t: Adapting practice through target exclusion negatively impacts motor learning

How to optimize practice through scheduling of different task components or skills is a question that has received a lot of attention in motor learning research. Consistently, schedules with high variability in the order that skills are practiced elicit better learning outcomes than schedules with low variability. Another idea is that learners should seek to reduce the uncertainty of practice outcomes, by avoiding well-learned, low error components in acquisition. To test this idea, we used a target exclusion method to prevent learners from returning to task components with low error and studied how individuals given choice over practice choose to allocate time to components of varying difficulty. In a multi-target adaptation paradigm, we compared exclusion with no exclusion methods in random-schedule, self-control and yoked, matched-schedule groups (6 groups total). To manipulate uncertainty, we excluded targets from practice once participants attained a criterion error score (mean < 5^o) from the last 5 trials to the same target. Contrary to our predictions, groups that practiced without target exclusion were more accurate in retention compared to exclusion groups; irrespective of practice schedule. Self-control groups adopted uncertainty-based practice, spending more time at difficult targets and less time at easier targets. However, there were no group differences in error, based on schedule-type (random, self-control and yoked). In conclusion, target exclusion was not an effective method for learning and did not support the efficacy of uncertainty-based practice for learning novel skills. There were benefits from keeping easier/low error skills in practice for later retention. These benefits did not appear to be related to the increased switching between skills, but could be related to increased task engagement and more optimal challenge associated with practice on a range of target difficulties, rather than the most difficult.     

High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition

The authors conducted 3 experiments to examine whether introducing high levels of contextual interference is useful in handwriting skill acquisition. For all experiments, elementary school students (Ns = 44, 50, and 78, respectively) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 practice schedules-blocked or random practice-in the acquisition phase. In the blocked condition, each of 3 letters (h, a, and y) or (in Experiment 1) symbols was handwritten 24 times consecutively. In the random condition, each letter (or symbol) was practiced 24 times, but in an intermixed, unsystematic sequence. Overall, the results showed that the random practice schedule leads to enhanced retention and transfer performance of handwriting skill acquisition.     

Implicit temporal tuning of working memory strategy during cognitive skill acquisition

Complex cognitive tasks such as multiple-step arithmetic entail strategies for coordinating mental processes such as calculation with processes for managing working memory (WM). Such strategies must be sensitive to factors such as the time needed for calculation. In 2 experiments we tested whether people can learn the timing constraints on WM demands when those constraints are implicitly imposed. We varied the retention period for intermediate results using the well-known digit size effect: The larger the operands, the longer it takes to perform addition. During learning participants practiced multiple-step arithmetic routines combined with large or small digits. At transfer, they performed both practiced and novel combinations. Practice performance was affected by digit size and WM demands. However, the transfer performance was not fully explained by the digit size effect or the practice effect. We argue that participants acquired temporal tuning of the WM strategy to the implicit retention interval imposed by the digit size and kept using the tuning mode to unpracticed data set.     

Long-term effects of type of practice on the learning and transfer of a complex motor skill

This study analyzed the long-term effects of practice schedule on shooting performance in basketball during actual field training. 32 college students (16 female) ages 20 to 29 years completed voluntary basketball training in one of two equal-sized groups employing either constant versus random training. The constant practice group took 160 shots from the free throw line, while the variable practice group took 160 shots from different positions around the restricted area. Learning and transfer (variation of throwing distance and size of the ball) performance was assessed with the Basketball-Shooting Test before and after training and on a retention test 1 yr. later. Significant measures in performance were attributed to learning and transfer in both training groups at all measurement times. Constant training groups had better acquisition and random training groups had better retention. The anticipated transfer effect in the random group was not found.     

Motor Learning as a Function of KR Schedule and Characteristics of Task-Intrinsic Feedback

Forty participants (age range = 18–35 years) practiced 1 of 2 versions of an aiming task (with or without spring resistance). Knowledge of results (KR) was provided to them either immediately or after a delay of 2 trials. Immediate KR led to significantly more accurate performance during the 80 trials in acquisition but significantly less accurate performance on a 40-trial retention test given 24 hr after practice. In addition, the spring version of the task was performed significantly less accurately than the no-spring version on the 24-hr retention test. Most important, a significant interaction on the 24-hr retention test revealed that performance of the no-spring version of the task, when KR had been given after a 2-trial delay, was significantly more accurate than performance of the other 3 combinations of task version and KR schedule. The results suggest that KR dependency in motor skill learning is related to familiarity with task-intrinsic feedback in addition to the schedule on which KR is presented.     

Motor learning as a function of KR schedule and characteristics of task-intrinsic feedback

Forty participants (age range = 18-35 years) practiced 1 of 2 versions of an aiming task (with or without spring resistance). Knowledge of results (KR) was provided to them either immediately or after a delay of 2 trials. Immediate KR led to significantly more accurate performance during the 80 trials in acquisition but significantly less accurate performance on a 40-trial retention test given 24 hr after practice. In addition, the spring version of the task was performed significantly less accurately than the no-spring version on the 24-hr retention test. Most important, a significant interaction on the 24-hr retention test revealed that performance of the no-spring version of the task, when KR had been given after a 2-trial delay, was significantly more accurate than performance of the other 3 combinations of task version and KR schedule. The results suggest that KR dependency in motor skill learning is related to familiarity with task-intrinsic feedback in addition to the schedule on which KR is presented.     

Models of performance in learning multisegment movement tasks: consequences for acquisition,retention, and judgments of learning

Participants learned different keystroke patterns, each requiring that a key sequence be struck in a prescribed time. Trials of a given pattern were either blocked or interleaved randomly with trials on the other patterns and before each trial modeled timing information was presented that either matched or mismatched the movement to be executed next. In acquisition, blocked practice and matching models supported better performance than did random practice and mismatching models. In retention, however, random practice and mismatching models were associated with superior learning. Judgments of learning made during practice were more in line with acquisition than with retention performance, providing further evidence that a learner's current ease of access to a motor skill is a poor indicator of learning benefit.