Long-Term Motor Programming Improvements Occur Via Concatenation of Movement Sequences during Random but Not during Blocked Practice

Journal of Motor Behavior

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 39-50

  Wright, David L ^a   Black, Charles B ^b   Immink, Maarten A ^c   Brueckner, Sebastian ^d   Magnuson, Curt ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Chunking; Contextual interference; Motor learning; Motor programming

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHUNKING PROCESS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MOTOR PROGRAMMING; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); MOVEMENT SEQUENCE; NORMAL HUMAN; PROCESS MODEL; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTOR SKILLS; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SERIAL LEARNING;

EID: 1242314204     PISSN: 00222895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.36.1.39-50     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Carlson, R. A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Acquisition context and the use of causal rules. Memory and Cognition, 17, 240-248.
3. Carlson, R. A., & Yaure, R. G. (1990). Practice schedules and the use of component skills in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 484-496.
4. Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In A.W. Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 244-283). New York: Academic Press.
5. Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a "memory drum" theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly, 31, 448-458.
6. Immink, M. A., & Wright, D. L. (1998). Contextual interference: A response planning account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A(4), 735-754.
7. Immink, M. A., & Wright, D. L. (2001). Motor programming during high and low contextual interference practice conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 423-437.
8. Keele, S. W. (1986). Motor control. In K. R. Boll, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. Vol. II. Cognitive processes and performance (chap. 2, pp. 1-60). New York: Wiley.
9. Ketelaars, M. A. C., Khan, M. A., & Franks, I. M. (1999). Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1302-1315.
10. Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple and choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1015-1027.
11. Klapp, S. T. (1996). Reaction time analysis of central motor control. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 13-34). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12. Klapp, S. T., Abbott, J., Coffman, K., Greim, D., Snider, R., & Young, F. (1979). Simple and choice reaction time methods in the study of motor programming. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 91-101.
13. Klapp, S. T., McRae, J., & Long, W. (1978). Response programming versus alternative interpretations of the "dit-dah" reaction time effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 5-6.
14. Klapp, S. T., Wyatt, E. P., & Lingo, W. M. (1974). Response programming in simple and choice reactions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 6, 263-271.
15. Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In D. Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, & I. M. Franks, (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 3-22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. Li, Y., & Wright, D. L. (2000). An assessment of the attention demands during random and blocked training schedules. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 591-606.
17. Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.
18. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1991). Human motor control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.
21. Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., Ericsson, K. A., & Bourne, L. E. (1996). The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. In A. F. Healy, & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp. 95-131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73, 145-157.
23. Shea, J. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context effects in memory and learning movement information. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 145-366). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24. Shea, J. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1988). Knowledge incorporation in motor representation. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behavior: The motor-action controversy (pp. 289-314). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117-152). New York: Academic Press.
26. Verwey, W. B. (1994). Evidence for the development of concurrent processing in a sequential keypressing task. Acta Psychologica, 85, 245-262.
27. Verwey, W. B. (1996). Buffer loading and chunking in sequential keypressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 544-562.
28. Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693-1708.
29. Verwey, W. B. (2001). Concatenating familiar movement sequences: The versatile cognitive processor. Acta Psychologica, 106, 69-95.
30. Wright, D. L. (1991). The role of intertask and intratask processing on the acquisition of a motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23(2), 139-145.
31. Wright, D. L., Li, Y., & Whitacre, C. (1992). The contribution of elaborative processing to the contextual interference effect. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 30-37.
32. Young, D. E., Husak, W. S., & Cohen, M. J. (1994). Contextual interference and motor skill acquisition: On the processes that influence retention. Human Movement Science, 12, 577-600.