1. Practice Amount, specificity, variable, constant... 1

2. Performance & learning What is learning, really?  Performance is observed, learning inferred  Performance can improve without improved learning  Learning can improve without improved performance 2

3. Amount of practice Do we become less dependent on the environment, or more?  Important implications – should you practice powerlifting in front of a mirror to aid form? (Proteau & Temblay, 1998)  Motor program theories could suggest you should  Repeat, repeat, repeat, and the process becomes increasingly independent of sensation (“you could do it with your eyes closed” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yshe4BcN_Mg).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yshe4BcN_Mg  Proteau and colleagues thought otherwise... 3

4. Amount of practice As we learn, do we rely less on feedback? Proteau’s task (1987, 1992)... 4

5. Amount of practice As we learn, do we rely less on feedback? Proteau’s typical paradigm...  Task: 90cm movement in 550msec  Condition 1: 200 trials with vision  Condition 2: 2000 trials with vision  Test condition: No vision Has also used walking (see next slide), force control, and others Sometimes as little as 20 vs. 200 trials too. 5

6. Amount of practice As we learn, do we rely less on feedback? Typical Results: The full vision practice condition typically transfers to a no vision condition badly, and this gets worse as full vision practice increases 6

7. Amount of practice As we learn, we seem to rely more on the information that is present and used when we learn  For the powerlifting form example – mirrors not a good idea (Proteau & Tremblay, 1998)  Also think of learning to type, drive (shifting gear), play piano (watching fingers) and so on  “learning is specific to the source or sources of afferent information that are more likely to ensure optimal performance” 7

8. Amount of practice More recent findings: – Weak vs. strong visual cues (still a reaching task) – weak vision transfers as well as no vision to a no vision condition – Weak vision encourages processing of other sources of information like proprioception 8

9. Variability of practice Imagine you’re trying to teach catching  Should you make it as simple as possible, by choosing only one type of ball, one type of throw, one catching technique…etc…  Or not? 9

10. Variability of practice Schema Theory (Schmidt, 1975)  More variability means more generalized schema for learning  Like a regression rule  Your performance of the right movement depends on the proximity of previous behavior to the desired behavior 10

11. Variability of practice Supported?  Generally, I’d say so, provided key assumptions are met  Are the participants genuinely novices?  Is sufficient practice given to form a strong enough prediction rule?  Is prediction of a novel version of the task ultimately required?  See Schmidt and Shapiro (1982) for a summary, and Schmidt & Lee’s texts for more recent summaries. Does not imply that the governing theory is accepted  Now as for organization of variability... 11

12. Contextual interference Practice order (3 tasks – A, B, and C) Blocked All A’s …then all B’s …then all C’s All A’s …then all B’s …then all C’s Serial A CB Random Who knows – it’s random! Amount of contextual interference Low High 12

13. Contextual interference Practice order (3 tasks – A, B, and C)  Stimulus light goes off  Color signifies which movement pattern to perform  Pick up tennis ball  Knock down barriers  Replace tennis ball  RT and MT measured 13

14. Contextual Interference effect From the classic study (Shea & Morgan, 1979) Practice – Low CI is better (time is being measured, so smaller scores are better) Retention – High CI is better 14

15. Contextual Interference Theory  2 primary hypotheses  Elaboration Compare the sequence of tasks practiced within blocked and random practice – what kinds of comparisons between or among the tasks are promoted by each type of practice? “inter-task” versus “intra-task” processing. 15

16. Contextual Interference Theory  2 primary hypotheses  Action plan reconstruction Compare the sequence of tasks practiced within blocked and random practice – how long, on average, do you have to wait before the task is repeated in each practice order? Brown-Peterson (1958), Peterson-Peterson (1960) Recall worsens as interval “A” increases A A Recall improves (!) as interval “A” increases 16

17. Contextual Interference Which hypothesis is best supported?  Please note I’m not saying this is proof of one theory’s predominance – it’s too complicated for that (think external validity!) – but it is interesting evidence in this instance. 17

18. Contextual Interference Predictions, and task 18

19. Contextual Interference A typical trial pattern (showing when TMS is applied) 19

20. Contextual Interference Which hypothesis is best supported? Blocked practice groups unaffected by TMS Random practice groups affected by TMS Blocked GroupsRandom Groups 20

21. Contextual Interference Now for something completely different We’ll see that these findings may severely limit the generalization of the CI effect 21

22. Contextual Interference Task:  Notice: overall duration varies across tasks; relative timing does not 22

23. Contextual Interference Task:  With this task, you can vary overall duration without varying rhythm  see previous slide  Or both  Or vice versa  E.g. 300-200-400 400-300-200 and 200-300-400 23

24. Contextual Interference Findings  Experiment 1:  The more consistent the practice type, the better people perform in retention and transfer  Here, ratio feedback was provided for all groups (i.e. how well did the person do in performing the required rhythm?) 24

25. Contextual Interference Experiment 2:  Feedback type has a radical effect on this outcome  Hard to grasp, but depending on feedback, effect is almost reversed  Generally, whatever results in stability of RT during practice works (random practice with segment feedback did this, & so did blocked practice w/ratio feedback)  Implication is that random practice is not good for learning tasks that require new relative timing patterns... ...but it is good if only absolute timing is required to change. 25

26. Contextual Interference Applied work (e.g. – there’s lots more)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIG3El76ltg&feature=related A task with “switched” relative timing 26

27. Contextual Interference Smith & Davies (1995)  Used a Pawlata roll  Compared progressive part learning of a full roll with either alternate (high CI) or blocked (low CI) practice  All transferred to both a full and a half roll one week later (score is 5 - average # attempts prior to success) 27

28. Contextual Interference Since then...  Still celebrated as a general effect (in some places)  Does not seem to be the case  Shea’s (& colleagues) work clearly important  Findings largely limited to overall timing (simple adaptations of already known movements)  Exceptions? Smith & Davies (1995, see also Smith, 2002, Smith et al, 2003) may be a result of negative transfer rather than CI (though this certainly matters too). See Barreiros, Figueiredo, & Godinho (2007) for a review of applied work. They say successful applications are somewhat rare (c. 40%)  Subsequent work emphasizes the disconnect between simple and complex tasks (see next slide) 28

29. Contextual Interference Complexity as a moderator (for CI & others) A good review paper for the final 29

30. Contextual Interference Different neural substrates responding to different practice structures? TMS again, used this time to disrupt particular brain sites (published in 2010) 30

31. Contextual Interference – concluding comments So what does all that mean?  There do seem to be fundamental differences in the brain’s reaction to the different practice types  These differences seem to be associated with different memory activities  Could be that random practice enhances recall-retrieval practice, while constant (or blocked) practice does not enhance recall-retrieval, but does a better job of allowing people to learn new movement patterns. 31

32. Part vs. Whole practice Segmentation, fractionation, simplification, component interdependence...  Do the parts fit together naturally, or can they be easily separated?  Think of a free throw – should you practice the knee movement and the arm movement separately?  Juggling...from the annals of 257 (Spring 2000) – Knapp & Dixon (1952) revisited. 32

33. Part vs. Whole practice 11am class: move through practice stages quickly (get to the full juggling phase as soon as possible) 12:35pm class: practice each stage thoroughly (master each stage before moving on) Similar findings have been published by Knapp & Dixon, 1952. 33

34. Part vs. Whole practice In this case, part practice of juggling didn’t work well Seems that the skill is highly organized, and as such should not be practiced in parts  Task complexity and organization (Naylor and Briggs, 1963) More recent research... 34

35. Part vs. Whole practice Part/whole practice for Polyrhythms Unimanual works well regardless of training type Polyrhythm does not benefit from part practice 35

36. Our readings this week... 36

37. Blandin, Toussaint & Shea, 2008 Guidance effect & specificity of practice Expt. 1: 37 No vision of arm “simple” one-joint movement Goal pattern P = proprioception only PV = prop + vision 33% = 33% feedback frequency 100% = 100% fdbk frequency P = proprioception only PV = prop + vision 33% = 33% feedback frequency 100% = 100% fdbk frequency

38. Blandin, Toussaint & Shea, 2008 Guidance effect & specificity of practice Expt. 1: 38 Slight tendency for 100% frequency to have less error during learning Both PV conditions fail to perform in non-vision conditions – effect greater with 33% than 100% - reasons? P = proprioception only PV = prop + vision 33% = 33% feedback frequency 100% = 100% fdbk frequency P = proprioception only PV = prop + vision 33% = 33% feedback frequency 100% = 100% fdbk frequency N.Sig. Sig. 198 trials

39. Blandin, Toussaint & Shea, 2008 Guidance effect & specificity of practice Expt. 2: PV only, # trials varied 39 Difference only exists for PV groups after 396 trials, not after 54 – and was in same direction as after 198 trials. PV33% = 33% frequency PV100% = 100% frequency Both either 54 or 396 trials PV33% = 33% frequency PV100% = 100% frequency Both either 54 or 396 trials Sig. 54 trials 396 trials

40. Porter & Magill (2010) Gradually increased levels of CI. Expt. 1: three putting tasks (vary by force only) 40 Note “increasing” group seems better than blocked early on – yet supposed to be more difficult?? (Note only sig effect was both gps better than random) Note no “standard” CI effect

41. Porter & Magill (2010) Expt. 2: 3 basketball passes (vary by coordination) 41 Only vertical error considered Distance constant – 5m Do these tasks require the acquisition of new forms of coordination?

42. Porter & Magill (2010) Expt. 2: 3 basketball passes (vary by coordination) 42 Practice: No significant effects Retention & transfer: Increasing < Random < Blocked

43. Porter & Magill (2010) Overall summary:  Small variations (force only): increasing better than both random and blocked  Large variations (change in movement pattern): increasing better than both random and blocked; random better than blocked  Is this to do with motor programs? Is CI leading to better learning of motor programs, or new forms of coordination? 43