1. Contextual interference …and the bench press 1

2. Simple vs. Complex skills This paper proposes a relationship for tasks that do or do not benefit from CI (see pages 187-189) 2

3. Simple vs. Complex skills “Complex” tasks supporting CI effects:  Kayak roll, badminton serve “Complex” tasks with equivocal findings:  Bimanual coordination, badminton serve, volleyball skills “Complex” tasks not supporting CI effects:  Tennis serve, several studies using children, Variations in complexity  Albaret & Thon (1999) – simple task showed CI effect, difficult task did not (# line drawing segments)  Shea et al – when processing RT and absolute time, CI effect disappears. Reappears when processing only absolute time. 3

4. Simple vs. Complex skills Complexity from elaboration standpoint (p. 189): 4 So, with complex tasks the multiple elements of the task ensure elaboration – high levels of intratask processing rather than intertask processing

5. Simple vs. Complex skills Taken together:  If the task is simple, increasing complexity of practice schedule can have positive effects  If the task is complex, increasing complexity of practice schedule can have neutral or even negative effects So, what is complexity?  # components?  # degrees of freedom?  Phase relationship between moving parts?  This is a problem! 5

6. So to the bench press… Quick note on the CI paradigm  Tasks are either practiced separately (blocked) or interspersed (random)  It’s this which manipulates processing type and reconstruction need 6

7. Naimo et al. Practiced bench press and dart throwing  4 sets bench press, 4 sets dart throwing.  LCI: all sets of each task completed in one block  HCI: one set of bench press, one set of dart throwing…repeat 4 x  DV for bench press  1RM  Checklist (score /13) Coordination? Complexity?  DV for dart throw  CE, VE (1D measures??) 7

8. Naimo et al. Findings… 8 No differences in checklist scores between HCI and LCI anywhere HCI improved from post to retention, LCI did not…CI effect? NB – no effects at all for dart throwing…CI effect?

9. Onto attentional focus… Previous thoughts on automaticity…  “Errorless” learning 9

10. Onto attentional focus… Previous thoughts on automaticity…  “Errorless” learning 10

11. Onto attentional focus… Previous thoughts on automaticity…  AF in bicep curl (Marchant, JSCR, 2009) 11

12. Kal et al. (2013) Within subject design (30 s)  Foot movement, letter fluency  Single task, dual task  Internal, external  Differences in movement duration, Dual task cost, EMG…  Movement more fluid, less prone to cost due to secondary task, when attention externally focused  Entirely consistent with previous findings 12

13. Final – posted on web site 13