Mechanisms of the contextual interference effect in individuals poststroke

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 106, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 2632-2641

  Schweighofer, Nicolas ^a   Lee, Jeong Yoon ^b   Goh, Hui Ting ^a   Choi, Youggeun ^b,d   Kim, Sung Shin ^a   Stewart, Jill Campbell ^a   Lewthwaite, Rebecca ^a,c   Winstein, Carolee J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center ^*  (United States)

^c RANCHO LOS AMIGOS NATIONAL REHABILITATION CENTER   (United States)

^d Dankook University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Computational neuroscience; Motor learning; Neurorehabilitation; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTEXTUAL INTERFERENCE EFFECT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; GRIP STRENGTH; HUMAN; MALE; MEMORY DISORDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; STROKE; WORKING MEMORY;

ADULT; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MEMORY, LONG-TERM; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SPACE PERCEPTION; STROKE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80755168232     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: 15221598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00399.2011     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anguera JA, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Willingham DT, Seidler RD. Contributions of spatial working memory to visuomotor learning. J Cogn Neurosci 22: 1917-1930, 2010.
2. Anguera JA, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Willingham DT, Seidler RD. Failure to engage spatial working memory contributes to age-related declines in visuomotor learning. J Cogn Neurosci 23: 11-25, 2011.
3. Anguera JA, Seidler RD, Gehring WJ. Changes in performance monitoring during sensorimotor adaptation. J Neurophysiol 102: 1868-1879, 2009.
4. Bach-y-Rita P, Balliet R. (editors). Recovery from stroke. In: Stroke Rehabilitation: the Recovery of Motor Control. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical, 1987, p. 79-107.
5. Boyd LA, Winstein CJ. Providing explicit information disrupts implicit motor learning after basal ganglia stroke. Learn Mem 11: 388-396, 2004.
6. Butefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci 130: 59-68, 1995.
7. Callan DE, Schweighofer N. Neural correlates of the spacing effect in explicit verbal semantic encoding support the deficient-processing theory. Hum Brain Mapp 31: 645-659, 2010.
8. Cauraugh JH, Kim SB. Stroke motor recovery: active neuromuscular stimulation and repetitive practice schedules. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74: 1562-1566, 2003.
9. Choi Y, Gordon J, Kim D, Schweighofer N. An adaptive automated robotic task-practice system for rehabilitation of arm functions after stroke. IEEE Trans Robot 25: 556-568, 2009.
10. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci 24: 87-114, 2001.
11. Cross ES, Kraemer DJ, Hamilton AF, Kelley WM, Grafton ST. Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cereb Cortex 19: 315-326, 2009.
12. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7: 13-31, 1975.
13. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77: 811-815, 1996.
14. Hawkins KA, Sullivan TE, Choi EJ. Memory deficits in schizophrenia: inadequate assimilation or true amnesia? Findings from the Wechsler Memory Scale-revised. J Psychiatry Neurosci 22: 169-179, 1997.
15. Hikosaka O, Nakamura K, Sakai K, Nakahara H. Central mechanisms of motor skill learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 12: 217-222, 2002.
16. Hintzman DL, Block RA, Summers JJ. Contextual associations and memory for serial position. J Exp Psychol 97: 220-229, 1973.
17. Immink MA, Wright DL. Motor programming during practice conditions high and low in contextual interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27: 423-437, 2001.
18. Joiner WM, Smith MA. Long-term retention explained by a model of short-term learning in the adaptive control of reaching. J Neurophysiol 100: 2948-2955, 2008.
19. Kantak SS, Sullivan KJ, Fisher BE, Knowlton BJ, Winstein CJ. Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nat Neurosci 13: 923-925, 2010.
20. Keisler A, Shadmehr R. A shared resource between declarative memory and motor memory. J Neurosci 30: 14817-14823, 2010.
21. Kording KP, Tenenbaum JB, Shadmehr R. The dynamics of memory as a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body. Nat Neurosci 10: 779-786, 2007.
22. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 19: 84-90, 2006.
23. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet 354: 191-196, 1999.
24. Lee JY, Schweighofer N. Dual adaptation supports a parallel architecture of motor memory. J Neurosci 29: 10396-10404, 2009.
25. Lee TD, Magill RA. The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9: 730-746, 1983.
26. Lee TD, Magill RA, Weeks DJ. Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults. J Mot Behav 17: 283-299, 1985.
27. Lee TD, Swanson LR, Hall AL. What is repeated in a repetition? Effects of practice conditions on motor skill acquisition. Phys Ther 71: 150-156, 1991.
28. Lin CH, Fisher BE, Winstein CJ, Wu AD, Gordon J. Contextual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. J Mot Behav 40: 578-586, 2008.
29. Lin CH, Sullivan KJ, Wu AD, Kantak S, Winstein CJ. Effect of task practice order on motor skill learning in adults with Parkinson disease: a pilot study. Phys Ther 87: 1120-1131, 2007.
30. Lin CH, Wu AD, Udompholkul P, Knowlton BJ. Contextual interference effects in sequence learning for young and older adults. Psychol Aging 25: 929-939, 2010.
31. Magill RA, Hall KG. A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Hum Mov Sci 9: 241-289, 1990.
32. Nixon SJ, Kujawski A, Parsons OA, Yohman JR. Semantic (verbal) and figural memory impairment in alcoholics. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 9: 311-322, 1987.
33. Pyle WH. Transfer and interference in card-distributing. J Educ Psychol 10: 107-110, 1919.
34. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning: a Behavioral Emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.
35. Shea JB, Morgan R. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 5: 179-187, 1979.
36. Smith MA, Ghazizadeh A, Shadmehr R. Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol 4: e179, 2006.
37. Tanaka S, Honda M, Hanakawa T, Cohen LG. Differential contribution of the supplementary motor area to stabilization of a procedural motor skill acquired through different practice schedules. Cereb Cortex 20: 2114-2121, 2010.
38. Tsuitsui S, Lee TD, Hodges NJ. Contextual interferences in learning new patterns of bimanual coordination. J Mot Behav 30: 151-157, 1998.
39. Wechsler D. Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological, 1987.
40. Wilson D, Baker LL, Craddock JA. Functional test for the hemiparetic upper extremity. Am J Occup Ther 38: 159-164, 1984.
41. Winstein CJ, Merians AS, Sullivan KJ. Motor learning after unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia 37: 975-987, 1999.
42. Wolf SL, Blanton S, Baer H, Breshears J, Butler AJ. Repetitive task practice: a critical review of constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke. Neurologist 8: 325-338, 2002.
43. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 296: 2095-2104, 2006.