practice scheduling in motor learning. adams’ closed loop theory of motor learning standard error...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
236 views
TRANSCRIPT
Practice Scheduling in Motor Learning
Practice Scheduling in Motor Learning
Adams’ Closed Loop Theory of Motor Learning
StandardStandard
Error DetectorError Detector
Motor Motor OrganizationOrganization
OutputOutput
AcquisitionAcquisition RetentionRetention TransferTransfer
Learning ParadigmLearning Paradigm
Retention Paradigms
Retention
RecognitionRecognition RecallRecall
CuedCued Uncued Uncued or Freeor Free
Evolution of motor learning theory
Evolution of motor learning theory
• Schema theory was Schmidt’s (1975) response to Adams’ (1971) model of motor learning.
• Adams proposed a closed loop model, with specific traces for movement and feedback.
• Schmidt criticized Adam’s model based on two notions: storage and novelty.
• Adams’ model was restricted to linear positioning tasks, limited generalizability.
Schema TheorySchema Theory
• In schema theory two memory states are hypothesized. They are: recall and recognition. The terms recall and recognition are taken from the verbal learning literature.
Initial ConditionsInitial Conditions
Desired OutcomeDesired Outcome
PastPastActualActualOutcomesOutcomes
Rec
all
Rec
all
Sch
ema
Sch
ema
Rec
ogni
tion
Rec
ogni
tion
Sch
ema
Sch
ema
PastPastSensorySensory
ConsequencesConsequences
PastPastResponseResponse
SpecificationsSpecifications
ResponseResponseSpecificationsSpecifications
ExpectedExpectedSensorySensoryConsequencesConsequences
Schmidt (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor learning. Schmidt (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor learning. Psychological Psychological Review, 82,Review, 82,225-260.225-260.
Four things are stored to satisfy the goal of the movement:
Four things are stored to satisfy the goal of the movement:
• Initial Conditions
• Response Specifications
• Sensory Consequences
• Response Outcome
The major hypothesis generated in schema theory is
the variability of practice hypothesis, one of the most tested hypotheses in motor
learning literature.
The major hypothesis generated in schema theory is
the variability of practice hypothesis, one of the most tested hypotheses in motor
learning literature.
Acquisition phase of the paradigm used to
test the variability of practice hypothesis Acquisition phase of the paradigm used to
test the variability of practice hypothesis Constant Practice AAA..., AAA..., AAA…
Variable Practice
Blocked AAA…, BBB…, CCC…
Random BAC…, CBA…, ACB…
Serial ABC…, ABC…, ABC…
Retention and transfer phases of the paradigm
Retention and transfer phases of the paradigm
• Transfer has been tested with tasks both within and outside the range of the already practiced tasks.
• Both retention and transfer have been tested.
• Several studies have examined the effect of variability of practice on performance of children.
Schmidt’s predictionsSchmidt’s predictions
• Transfer is better to tasks within the range of the originally practiced tasks.
• Variable practice produces better transfer than constant practice.
Schema theory still provides impetus Schema theory still provides impetus for research on the concept of a for research on the concept of a generalized motor program.generalized motor program.
Gentile (1972, 1987) also supported a variable practice structure for latter stages of learning and for skills that have changing features, such as: open skills and closed skills with intertrial variability.
Levels of Processing FrameworkCraik & Lockhart (1972)
• Meaningfulness (Depth of Processing)
• Elaboration (Breadth of Processing)
• Distinctiveness
• Familiarity
• Encoding Retrieval Specificity
Levels of processing theoryCraik & Lockhart (1972)
Levels of processing theoryCraik & Lockhart (1972)
• New view of memory research
• Different from existing and traditional views of memory
• Viewed the subject as active in the processing of information
Original hypothesis was presented in the Intratask Interference Theory (Battig,1966) Original hypothesis was presented in the
Intratask Interference Theory (Battig,1966)
Intratask interference leads to intertask facilitation.
Battig’s (1979) Contextual interference hypothesis
Battig’s (1979) Contextual interference hypothesis
• Factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to the task being learned will affect the interference created, i.e., context became the key component in his hypothesis.
• In 1979, Battig brought his theory in line with the levels of processing framework.
Contextual interferenceContextual interference
• Random practice, high contextual interference, is produced by presenting tasks in an unpredictable order of trials. In a random practice structure, subjects are required to recreate the memory trace trial after trial.
• Blocked practice, low contextual interference, is produced by presenting all trials of one task before proceeding onto the next task. In a blocked practice structure subjects may hold the memory trace in short-term memory for the next trial of practice.
AcquisitionAcquisition RetentionRetention
Per
form
ance
Per
form
ance
PoorPoor
GoodGood
RandomRandom
BlockedBlocked
A hypothetical model of the paradoxical effect predicted A hypothetical model of the paradoxical effect predicted in contextual interference theory (Battig, 1979). in contextual interference theory (Battig, 1979).
Shea & Morgan (1979)Shea & Morgan (1979)
• Shea & Morgan were the first to apply the concept of contextual interference to motor skills research.
• They provided the paradigm for testing context effects in an acquisition, retention, and transfer paradigm.
AcquisitionAcquisition
Blocked RandomBlocked Random
BL RA BL RABL RA BL RA
Retention and transfer tests occurred following a 10 minuteRetention and transfer tests occurred following a 10 minuteinterval, and a second delayed retention test occurred interval, and a second delayed retention test occurred following a 10 day retention interval.following a 10 day retention interval.
BLBL RARA BL RA BL RA BL RABL RA BL RA BL RA
RetentionRetention
TransferTransfer
Shea & Zimny (1983, 1988)Shea & Zimny (1983, 1988)
• Contextual interference caused by random practice produces greater elaboration of memory for a particular category of tasks.
• Shea & Zimny explained the contextual interference effect through a processing view in which multiple and varied processing strategies are used in short-term or working memory. Thus processing in a random condition forces more elaborate and distinctive traces than a blocked condition.
• Shea & Zimny (1983) stated that conditions of high contextual interference or high intertask variability leads to increased retention “… especially when the original learning is changed (p.361).
Lee (1987) and Lee & Magill (1983, 1985)
Lee (1987) and Lee & Magill (1983, 1985)
• Lee, and Lee and Magill proposed that forgetting from short-term or working memory occurs between trials, and thus reconstruction of the action plan occurs trial after trial.
Meeusen (1987)Meeusen (1987)
• The retroactive inhibition literature helps to explain the contextual interference effect through a discussion of the implications of blocked practice on retention and transfer.