Abstract
Constant and variable practice conditions have been hypothesized to lead to different learning outcomes between them but similar within. However, experiments have found that within a constant practice condition, participants can show highly individual outcomes (i.e., coordination functions). Considering the contradictory evidence on the effects of variable practice, we tested the idea that measures of the individual learned outcome would be required to provide a full explanation for results in transfer tests rather than or in addition to the group task-related conditions on which individuals practiced. Twenty-four participants were divided into three groups with different practice conditions (constant, varied distance of the target, and varied angle of the target) and for 5 days performed a task of throwing for precision to a target. Pre-, post-, and transfer tests were used to evaluate our hypothesis. The results showed that although the group measures could predict certain aspects of the transfer tests, the coordination function characteristics were required to show higher levels of explanatory power. This finding supports the view that learning involves a specific, individual and generalizable solution although there are aspects of learning that are specific to the condition of practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These tests cannot be called as retention or transfer tests. Some groups performed, during practice, one of the conditions presented after practice but not the other one. We decided to call them transfer tests on the view that, for all individuals, at least one condition was new. The tests were thought to grasp the whole spectrum of performance considering variations in angle and distance of a target (see text for more details).
The position of the target in relation to the participant led to more tolerance in the medio-lateral direction compared to the antero-posterior direction. Nevertheless, provided the relative position between target and participant remained the same for all groups, we do not expect this to be influential.
We also analyzed performance in terms of the dispersion of trials in the landing plane (area of the positions of where the balls landed) for pre-/post-tests and transfer-tests. Nevertheless, the results were virtually the same as the sum of the hits. Given that the percentage of hits was the measure of main importance in the task, we only present results related to it.
The usage of velocity of release instead of speed and angle was also to avoid different units.
Differential learning approach does consider individuality when introduces the idea of stochastic resonance. Variability at the level of the exercises resonates with individual variability, giving rise to the instability of the system required for adaptations (Schöllhorn 2016). However, our proposition deviates from this view and our results do not corroborate.
The DG group already performed the DT condition during practice and the AG group already performed the AT condition during practice.
References
Beek PJ, van Santvoord AM (1992) Learning the cascade juggle: a dynamical systems analysis. J Mot Behav 24:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1992.9941604
Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (2004) Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, Hoboken
Brady F (1998) A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest 50:266–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1998.10484285
Brady F (2008) The contextual interference effect and sport skills. Percept Mot Skills 106:461–472. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.2.461-472
Braun DA, Aertsen A, Wolpert DM, Mehring C (2009) Motor task variation induces structural learning. Curr Biol 19:352–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.036
Braun DA, Mehring C, Wolpert DM (2010) Structure learning in action. Behav Brain Res 206(2):157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.08.031
Breslin G, Hodges NJ, Steenson A, Williams AM (2012) Constant or variable practice: recreating the especial skill effect. Acta Psychol 140:154–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.04.002
Cardis M, Casadio M, Ranganathan R (2018) High variability impairs motor learning regardless of whether it affects task performance. J Neurophysiol 119:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00158.2017
Haken H (1996) Principles of brain functioning: a synergetic approach to brain activity, behavior and cognition. Springer, Berlin
Harrison SJ, Stergiou N (2015) Complex adaptive behavior and dexterous action. Nonlinear Dyn Psychol 19:345–394
Hossner EJ, Käch B, Enz J (2016) On the optimal degree of fluctuations in practice for motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 47:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.007
Kostrubiec V, Zanone PG, Fuchs A, Kelso JAS (2012) Beyond the blank slate: routes to learning new coordination patterns depend on the intrinsic dynamics of the learner-experimental evidence and theoretical model. Front Hum Neurosci 6:222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00222
Latash ML (2010) Stages in learning motor synergies: a view based on the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Hum Mov Sci 29:642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.11.002
Magill RA, Hall KG (1990) A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Hum Mov Sci 9:241–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X
Moxley SE (1979) Schema: the variability of practice hypothesis. J Mot Behav 11:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1979.10735173
Newell KM (2003) Schema theory (1975): retrospectives and prospectives. Res Q Exerc Sport 74:383–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609108
Newell KM, Vaillancourt DE (2001) Dimensional change in motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 20:695–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00073-2
Newell KM, Kugler PN, van Emmerik REA, McDonald PV (1989) Search strategies and the acquisition of coordination. In: Wallace SA (ed) Perspectives on the coordination of movement. Elsevier, North-Holland, pp 85–122
Pacheco MM, Newell KM (2015) Transfer as a function of exploration and stabilization in original practice. Hum Mov Sci 44:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.09.009
Pacheco MM, Newell KM (2018) Transfer as a function of the learned coordination function: specific, individual and generalizable. Hum Mov Sci 59:66–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2018.03.019
Pacheco MM, Hsieh TY, Newell KM (2017) Search strategies in practice: movement variability affords perception of task dynamics. Ecol Psychol 29:243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1368354
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Schmidt RA (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev 82:225–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0076770
Schmidt RA (2003) Motor schema theory after 27 years: reflections and implications for a new theory. Res Q Exerc Sport 74:366–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2003.10609106
Schmidt RA, Young A (1987) Transfer of movement control in motor skill learning. In: Cormier SM, Hagman JD (eds) Transfer of learning. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 47–79
Schöllhorn WI (2016) Invited commentary: differential learning is different from contextual interference learning. Hum Mov Sci 47:240–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.018
Schöllhorn WI, Mayer-Kress G, Newell KM, Michelbrink M (2009) Time scales of adaptive behavior and motor learning in the presence of stochastic perturbations. Hum Mov Sci 28:319–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2008.10.005
Shea JB, Morgan RL (1979) Contextual interference effects n the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 5:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179
Stergiou N, Harbourne RT, Cavanaugh JT (2006) Optimal movement variability: a new theoretical perspective for neurologic physical therapy. J Neurol Phys Ther 30:120–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPT.0000281949.48193.d9
Tuitert I, Bootsma RJ, Schoemaker MM, Otten E, Mouton LJ, Bongers RM (2017) Does practicing a wide range of joint angle configurations lead to higher flexibility in a manual obstacle-avoidance target-pointing task? PLoS One 12:e0181041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181041
van Rossum JHA (1990) Schmidt’s schema theory: the empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis. A critical analysis. Hum Mov Sci 9:387–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(90)90010-B
Winter DA (2009) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley, Hoboken
Withagen R, Michaels CF (2005) The role of feedback information for calibration and attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1379–1390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1379
Withagen R, van Wermeskerken M (2009) Individual differences in learning to perceive length by dynamic touch: evidence for variation in perceptual learning capacities. Atten Percept Psychophys 71:64–75. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.1.64
Wulf G, Shea CH (2002) Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychon Bull Rev 9:185–211. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276
Zanone PG, Kelso JAS (1992) Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning: nonequilibrium phase-transitions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.2.403
Zanone PG, Kelso JAS (1997) Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: collective and component levels. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:1454–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1454
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)—Brazil [Grant number 211487/2013-9].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pacheco, M.M., Newell, K.M. Learning a specific, individual and generalizable coordination function: evaluating the variability of practice hypothesis in motor learning. Exp Brain Res 236, 3307–3318 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5383-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5383-3