Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 185–211 | Cite as

Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning

  • Gabriele WulfEmail author
  • Charles H. Shea
Theoretical and Review Articles


We review research related to the learning of complex motor skills with respect to principles developed on the basis of simple skill learning. Although some factors seem to have opposite effects on the learning of simple and of complex skills, other factors appear to be relevant mainly for the learning of more complex skills. We interpret these apparently contradictory findings as suggesting that situations with low processing demands benefit from practice conditions that increase the load and challenge the performer, whereas practice conditions that result in extremely high load should benefit from conditions that reduce the load to more manageable levels. The findings reviewed here call into question the generalizability of results from studies using simple laboratory tasks to the learning of complex motor skills. They also demonstrate the need to use more complex skills in motor-learning research in order to gain further insights into the learning process.


Motor Skill Motor Learning Retention Test Skill Learning Complex Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,3, 111–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. A. (1976). Issues for a closed-loop theory of motor learning. In G. E. Stemach (Ed.),Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 229–240). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills.Psychological Bulletin,101, 41–74.Google Scholar
  4. Albaret, J.-M., &Thon, B. (1999). Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in a drawing task.Acta Psychologica,100, 9–24.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Mustafa, A. A. (1989, June).Contextual interference: Blocking within a random order. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Asilomar, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, J. R., &Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1322–1340.Google Scholar
  7. Bachman, J. C. (1961). Specificity vs. generality in learning and performing two large muscle motor tasks.Research Quarterly,32, 3–11.Google Scholar
  8. Banaji, M. R., &Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory.American Psychologist,44, 1185–1193.Google Scholar
  9. Battig, W. F. (1972). Intratask interference as a source of facilitation in transfer and retention. In R. F. Thompson & J. F. Voss (Eds.),Topics in learning and performance (pp. 131–159). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,46, 610–620.Google Scholar
  11. Baumeister, R. F., &Steinhilber, A. (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,47, 85–93.Google Scholar
  12. Bernstein, N. (1967).The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  13. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.),Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–207). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Blandin, Y., Proteau, L., &Alain, C. (1994). On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,26, 18–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bortoli, L., Robazza, C., Durigon, V., &Carra, C. (1992). Effects of contextual interference on learning technical sports skills.Perceptual & Motor Skills,75, 555–562.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, H. S., &Messersmith, L. (1948). An experiment in teaching tumbling with and without motion pictures.Research Quarterly,18, 304–307.Google Scholar
  17. Burwitz, L. (1975).Observational learning and motor performance. Paper presented at the FEPSAC Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  18. Carnahan, H., Van Eerd, D. L., &Allard, F. (1990). A note on the relationship between task requirements and the contextual interference effect.Journal of Motor Behavior,22, 159–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Carr, J., &Shepherd, R. (2000).Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  20. Del Rey, P. (1982). Effects of contextual interference on memory of older females differing in levels of physical activity.Perceptual & Motor Skills,55, 171–180.Google Scholar
  21. Del Rey, P., Whitehurst, M., Wughalter, E., &Barnwell, B. (1983). Contextual interference and experience in acquisition and transfer.Perceptual & Motor Skills,57, 241–242.Google Scholar
  22. Del Rey, P., Wughalter, M. E., &Carnes, M. (1987). Level of expertise, interpolated activity, and contextual interference effects on memory and transfer.Perceptual & Motor Skills,64, 275–284.Google Scholar
  23. Del Rey, P., Wughalter, M. E., &Whitehurst, M. (1982). The effects of contextual interference on females with varied experience in open sport skills.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,53, 108–115.Google Scholar
  24. den Brinker, B. P. L. M., &van Hekken, M. F. (1982). The analysis of slalom-type movements using a ski-simulator apparatus.Human Movement Science,1, 91–108.Google Scholar
  25. Durand, M., Geoffroi, V., Varray, A., &Préfaut, C. (1994). Study of the energy correlates in the learning of a complex self-paced cyclical skill.Human Movement Science,13, 785–799.Google Scholar
  26. Farrow, D., &Maschette, W. (1997). The effects of contextual interference on children learning forehand tennis groundstrokes.Journal of Human Movement Studies,33, 47–67.Google Scholar
  27. Fery, Y. A., &VomHofe, A. (2000). When will the ball rebound? Evidence for the usefulness of mental analogies in appraising the duration of motions.British Journal of Psychology,91, 259–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.Journal of Experimental Psychology,47, 381–391.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fitts, P. M., &Posner, M. I. (1967).Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  30. French, K. E., Rink, J. E., &Werner, P. F. (1990). Effects of contextual interference on retention of three volleyball skills.Perceptual & Motor Skills,71, 179–186.Google Scholar
  31. Gable, C. D., Shea, C. H., &Wright, D. L. (1991). Summary knowledge of results.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,62, 285–292.Google Scholar
  32. Gabriele, T. E., Hall, C. R., &Buckolz, E. E. (1987). Practice schedule effects on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill.Human Movement Science,6, 1–16.Google Scholar
  33. Gabriele, T. E., Hall, C. R., &Lee, T. D. (1989). Cognition in motor learning: Imagery effects on contextual interference.Human Movement Science,8, 227–245.Google Scholar
  34. Gabriele, T. E., Lee, T. D., &Hall, C. R. (1991). Contextual interference in movement timing: Specific effects in retention and transfer.Journal of Human Movement Studies,20, 177–188.Google Scholar
  35. Gallwey, W. T. (1982).The inner game of tennis. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  36. Goode, S. L. (1986).The contextual interference effect in learning an open motor skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
  37. Goode, S. L., &Magill, R. A. (1986). The contextual interference effect in learning three badminton serves.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,57, 308–314.Google Scholar
  38. Gould, D. (1980).The influence of motor task types on model effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  39. Guadagnoli, M. A., Dornier, L. A., &Tandy, R. D. (1996). Optimal length for summary knowledge of results: The influence of taskrelated experience and complexity.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,67, 239–248.Google Scholar
  40. Hagman, J. D. (1983). Presentation- and test-trial effects on acquisition and retention of distance and location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 334–345.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, K. G., Domingues, D. A., &Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players.Perceptual & Motor Skills,78, 835–841.Google Scholar
  42. Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., &Solmon, M. A. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students: An applied study.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,67, 52–58.Google Scholar
  43. Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. In R. C. Brown, Jr., & G. S. Kenyon (Eds.),Classical studies in physical activity (pp. 328–331). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Henry, F. M., &Rogers, D. E. (1964). Increased response latency for complicated movements and the “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction.Research Quarterly,31, 448–458.Google Scholar
  45. Hoffman, S. J. (1990). Relevance, application, and the development of an unlikely theory.Quest,42, 143–160.Google Scholar
  46. Holding, D. H. (1969). Learning without errors. In L. E. Smith (Ed.),Psychology of motor learning (pp. 59–81). Chicago: Athletic Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Holding, D. H., &Macrae, A. W. (1964). Guidance, restriction and knowledge of results.Ergonomics,7, 289–295.Google Scholar
  48. Holding, D. H., &Macrae, A. W. (1966). Rate and force of guidance in perceptual-motor tasks with reversed or random spatial correspondence.Ergonomics,9, 289–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. James, W. (1890).The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  51. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The timing of natural prehension.Journal of Motor Behavior,16, 201–211.Google Scholar
  52. Jelsma, O., &Pieters, J. M. (1989). Practice schedule and cognitive style interaction in learning a maze task.Applied Cognitive Psychology,3, 73–83.Google Scholar
  53. Jelsma, O., &Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1989). Contextual interference: Interactions with reflection-impulsivity.Perceptual & Motor Skills,68, 1055–1064.Google Scholar
  54. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 201–211.Google Scholar
  55. Jordan, J. A. (1997).The effectiveness of individual and dyadic training protocols for complex skill acquisition in space fortress: A metaanalysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
  56. Kahnemann, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Kelso, J. A. S. (1977). Planning and efferent components in the coding of movement.Journal of Motor Behavior,9, 33–47.Google Scholar
  58. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995).Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Klapp, S. (1995). Motor response programming during simple and choice reaction time: The role of practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1015–1022.Google Scholar
  60. Kohl, R. M., &Fisicaro, S. A. (1996). Response intention and imagery processes: Locus, interaction, and contribution to motor learning.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,19, 760–762.Google Scholar
  61. Kohl, R. M., &Shea, C. H. (1992). Pew (1966) revisited: Acquisition of hierarchical control as a function of observational practice.Journal of Motor Behavior,24, 247–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Lai, Q., &Shea, C. H. (1998). Generalized motor program (GMP) learning: Effects of reduced frequency of knowledge of results and practice variability.Journal of Motor Behavior,30, 51–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Lai, Q., &Shea, C. H. (1999). Bandwidth knowledge of results enhances generalized motor program learning.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,70, 79–83.Google Scholar
  64. Lai, Q., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., &Wright, D. L. (2000). Optimizing generalized motor programs and parameter learning.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,71, 10–24.Google Scholar
  65. Landers, D. M., &Landers, D. M. (1973). Teacher versus peer models: Effects of model’s presence and performance level on motor behavior.Journal of Motor Behavior,5, 129–139.Google Scholar
  66. Lavery, J. J. (1962). Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge of results.Canadian Journal of Psychology,16, 300–311.Google Scholar
  67. Lee, T. D., &Carnahan, H. (1990). When to provide knowledge of results during motor learning: Scheduling effects.Human Performance,3, 87–105.Google Scholar
  68. Lee, T. D., &Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,59, 277–287.Google Scholar
  69. Lee, T. D., &Genovese, E. D. (1989). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Different effects for discrete and continuous tasks.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,60, 59–65.Google Scholar
  70. Lee, T. D., &Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 730–746.Google Scholar
  71. Lee, T. D., &Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In D. Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, & I. M. Franks (Eds.),Differing perspectives on memory, learning and control (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  72. Lee, T. D., Swinnen, S. P., &Serrien, D. J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor learning.Quest,46, 328–344.Google Scholar
  73. Lee, T. D., &White, M. A. (1990). Influence of an unskilled model’s practice schedule on observational motor learning.Human Movement Science,9, 349–367.Google Scholar
  74. Lee, T. D., Wishart, L. R., Cunningham, S., &Carnahan, H. (1997). Modeled timing information during random practice eliminates the contextual interference effect.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,68, 100–105.Google Scholar
  75. Lee, T. D., Wulf, G., &Schmidt, R. A. (1992). Contextual interference in motor learning: Dissociated effects due to the nature of task variations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 627–644.Google Scholar
  76. Limons, E., &Shea, J. B. (1988). Deficient processing in learning and performance. In A. M. Colley & R. J. Beech (Eds.),Cognition and action in skilled behavior (pp. 333–347). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  77. Locke, L. F. (1990). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love.Quest,42, 136–142.Google Scholar
  78. Lotze, R. H. (1852).Medicinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele (Medical psychology or physiology of the soul). Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  79. Maddox, D., Wulf, G., & Wright, D. L. (2000).The effects of an internal vs. external focus of attention on the learning of a tennis backhand. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  80. Magill, R. A., Chamberlin, C. J., &Hall, K. G. (1991). Verbal knowledge of results as redundant information for learning an anticipation timing skill.Human Movement Science,10, 485–507.Google Scholar
  81. Magill, R. A., &Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition.Human Movement Science,9, 241–289.Google Scholar
  82. Martens, R., Burwitz, L., &Zuckerman, J. (1976). Modeling effects on motor performance.Research Quarterly,47, 277–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Massaro, D. W. (1990). An information-processing analysis of perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 133–166). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  84. McCullagh, P., Weiss, M. R., &Ross, D. (1989). Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In K. Pandolf (Ed.),Exercise and sport science reviews (Vol. 17, pp. 475–513). Baltimore: Williams & Wadkins.Google Scholar
  85. McNevin, N. H., Shea, C. H., & Wulf, G. (in press). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning.Psychological Research.Google Scholar
  86. Neisser, U. (1991). A case of misplaced nostalgia.American Psychologist,46, 34–36.Google Scholar
  87. Neisser, U., &Winograd, E. (1988).Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Newell, K. M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition.Annual Review of Psychology,42, 213–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Newell, K. M., &Slifkin, A. B. (1996). The nature of movement variability. In J. Piek (Ed.),Motor control and human skill: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 143–159). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  90. Nicholson, D. E., &Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Scheduling information feedback to enhance training effectiveness. InProceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1400–1403). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  91. Park, J.-H., Shea, C. H., &Wright, D. L. (2000). Reduced-frequency concurrent and terminal feedback: A test of the guidance hypothesis.Journal of Motor Behavior,32, 287–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Pew, R. W. (1966). Acquisition of hierarchical control over the temporal organization of a skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology,71, 764–771.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Pigott, R. E., &Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,55, 41–45.Google Scholar
  94. Pinto-Zipp, G., &Gentile, A. M. (1995). Practice schedules in motor learning: Children vs. adults.Society of Neuroscience: Abstracts,21, 1620.Google Scholar
  95. Povel, D.-J., &Collard, R. (1982). Structural factors in patterned finger tapping.Acta Psychologica,52, 107–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  97. Prinz, W. (1992). Why don’t we perceive our brain states?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,4, 1–20.Google Scholar
  98. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,9, 129–154.Google Scholar
  99. Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., Hommel, B., &Vogt, S. (1995). Handlungen als Ereignisse [Actions as events]. In D. Dörner & E. van der Meer (Eds.),Das Gedächtnis: Probleme—Trends—Perspektiven (pp. 129–168). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  100. Proctor, R. W., &Dutta, A. (1993). Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 922–930.Google Scholar
  101. Riley, M. A., Stoffregen, T. A., Grocki, M. J., &Turvey, M. T. (1999). Postural stabilization for the control of touching.Human Movement Science,18, 795–817.Google Scholar
  102. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A, &Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical appraisal.Psychological Bulletin,95, 355–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  104. Schmidt, R. A. (1988).Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  105. Schmidt, R. A. (1991a). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.),Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59–75). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  106. Schmidt, R. A. (1991b).Motor learning and performance: From principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  107. Schmidt, R. A., &Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new principles for training.Psychological Science,3, 207–217.Google Scholar
  108. Schmidt, R. A., Lange, C., &Young, D. E. (1990). Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning.Human Movement Science,9, 325–348.Google Scholar
  109. Schmidt, R. A., &Wrisberg, C. A. (2000).Motor learning and performance: A problem-based learning approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  110. Schmidt, R. A., &Wulf, G. (1997). Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation.Human Factors,39, 509–525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S., &Shapiro, D. E. (1989). Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 352–359.Google Scholar
  112. Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H., Hawkins, B., Frank, J. S., &Quinn, J. T. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts.Psychological Review,47, 415–451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Schneider, W., &Fisk, A. D. (1983). Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In R. A. Magill (Ed.),Memory and control of action (pp. 119–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  114. Schneider, W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–66.Google Scholar
  115. Schönfelder-Zohdi, B. G. (1992).Investigating the informational nature of a modelled visual demonstration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
  116. Scully, D. M., &Newell, K. M. (1985). Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills: Toward a visual perception perspective.Journal of Human Movement Studies,11, 169–186.Google Scholar
  117. Sekiya, H., Magill, R. A., &Anderson, D. I. (1996). The contextual interference effect in parameter modifications of the same generalized motor program.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,67, 59–68.Google Scholar
  118. Sekiya, H., Magill, R. A., Sidaway, B., &Anderson, D. I. (1994). The contextual interference effect for skill variations from the same and different generalized motor programs.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,65, 330–338.Google Scholar
  119. Shapiro, D. C., &Schmidt, R. A. (1982). The schema theory: Recent evidence and developmental implications. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.),The development of movement control and co-ordination (pp. 113–150). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  120. Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., &Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice.Acta Psychologica,73, 145–157.Google Scholar
  121. Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Wright, D. L., Immink, M., &Black, C. (2001). Consistent and variable practice conditions: Effects on generalized motor program and parameter learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,33, 139–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., &Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities.Journal of Motor Behavior,32, 27–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Shea, C. H., &Wulf, G. (1999). Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback.Human Movement Science,18, 553–571.Google Scholar
  124. Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., Whitacre, C. A. (1999). Enhancing training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of dyad training.Journal of Motor Behavior,31, 119–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Shea, J. B., &Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 179–187.Google Scholar
  126. Shea, J. B., &Titzer, R. C. (1993). The influence of reminder trials on contextual interference effect.Journal of Motor Behavior,25, 264–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Shea, J. B., &Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context effects in learning movement information. In R. A. Magill (Ed.),Memory and the control of action (pp. 345–366). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  128. Shebilske, W. L., Regian, J. W., Arthur, W., &Jordan, J. A. (1992). A dyadic protocol for training complex skills.Human Factors,34, 369–374.Google Scholar
  129. Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–190.Google Scholar
  130. Sidaway, B., &Hand, M. J. (1993). Frequency of modeling effects on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,64, 122–126.Google Scholar
  131. Singer, R. N., Lidor, R., &Cauraugh, J. H. (1993). To be aware or not aware: What to think about while learning and performing a motor skill.Sport Psychologist,7, 19–30.Google Scholar
  132. Smith, P. J. K., &Davies, M. (1995). Applying contextual interference to the Pawlata roll.Journal of Sport Sciences,13, 455–462.Google Scholar
  133. Swanson, L., &Lee, T. D. (1992). The effects of aging and scheduling of knowledge of results on motor learning.Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,47, 406–411.Google Scholar
  134. Swinnen, S. P., Lee, T. D., Verschueren, S., Serrien, D. J., &Bogaerds, H. (1997). Interlimb coordination: Learning and transfer under different feedback conditions.Human Movement Science,16, 749–785.Google Scholar
  135. Swinnen, S. P., Schmidt, R. A., Nicholson, D. E., &Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 706–716.Google Scholar
  136. Tarpy, R. M. (1982).Principles of animal learning and motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  137. Todorov, E., Shadmehr, R., &Bizzi, E. (1997). Augmented feedback presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task.Journal of Motor Behavior,29, 147–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Tsutsui, S., Lee, T. D., &Hodges, N. J. (1998). Contextual interference in learning new patterns of bimanual coordination.Journal of Motor Behavior,30, 151–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Vallacher, R. R., &Wegner, D. M. (1985).A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  140. Vallacher, R. R., &Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior.Psychological Review,94, 3–15.Google Scholar
  141. Vander Linden, D. W., Cauraugh, J. H., &Greene, T. A. (1993). The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects.Physical Therapy,73, 79–87.Google Scholar
  142. Vereijken, B. (1991).The dynamics of skill acquisition. Meppel: Krips Repro.Google Scholar
  143. Vereijken, B., van Emmerik, R. E. A., Whiting, H. T. A., &Newell, K. M. (1992). Free(z)ing degrees of freedom in skill acquisition.Journal of Motor Behavior,24, 133–142.Google Scholar
  144. Weeks, D. L., &Anderson, L. P. (2000). The interaction of observational learning and overt practice: Effects on motor skill learning.Acta Psychologica,104, 259–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Weeks, D. L., &Kordus, R. N. (1998). Relative frequency of knowledge of performance and motor skill learning.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,69, 224–230.Google Scholar
  146. Weiss, P. (1939).Principles of development. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  147. Welford, A. T. (1968).Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  148. Whitacre, C. A., &Shea, C. H. (2000). The performance and learning of generalized motor programs: Relative (GMP) and absolute (parameter) errors.Journal of Motor Behavior,32, 163–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Whiting, H. T. A. (1988). Imitation and the learning of complex cyclical actions. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.),Complex motor behavior: The motor action controversy (pp. 381–401). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  150. Wightman, D., &Lintern, G. (1985). Part-task training for tracking and manual control.Human Factors,27, 267–283.Google Scholar
  151. Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning.Psychological Review,105, 558–584.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Winstein, C. J., Pohl, P. S., Cardinale, C., Green, A., Scholtz, L., &Waters, C. S. (1996). Learning a partial-weight-bearing skill: Effectiveness of two forms of feedback.Physical Therapy,76, 985–993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Winstein, C. J., Pohl, P. S., &Lewthwaite, R. (1994). Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: Support for the guidance hypothesis.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,65, 316–323.Google Scholar
  154. Winstein, C. J., &Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 677–691.Google Scholar
  155. Wright, D. L., Li, Y., &Coady, W. J. (1994). Cognitive processes related to contextual interference and observational learning: A replication of Blandin, Proteau, and Alain (1994).Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,68, 106–109.Google Scholar
  156. Wright, D. L., Li, Y., &Whitacre, C. (1992). The contribution of elaborative processing to the contextual interference effect.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,63, 30–37.Google Scholar
  157. Wright, D. L., &Shea, C. H. (2001). Manipulating generalized motor program difficulty during blocked and random practice does not affect parameter learning.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,72, 32–38.Google Scholar
  158. Wrisberg, C. A. (1991). A field test of the effect of contextual variety during skill acquisition.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,11, 21–30.Google Scholar
  159. Wrisberg, C. A., &Liu, Z. (1991). The effect of contextual variety on the practice, retention, and transfer of an applied motor skill.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,62, 406–412.Google Scholar
  160. Wulf, G. (1992). The learning of generalized motor programs and motor schemata: Effects of KR relative frequency and contextual interference.Journal of Human Movement Studies,23, 53–76.Google Scholar
  161. Wulf, G., & Bühner, M. (1996). Unpublished data. Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich.Google Scholar
  162. Wulf, G., Hörger, M., &Shea, C. H. (1999). Benefits of blocked over serial feedback in complex motor skill learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,31, 95–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. Wulf, G., Höß, M., &Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal vs. external focus of attention.Journal of Motor Behavior,30, 169–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. Wulf, G., Lauterbach, B., &Toole, T. (1999). Learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,70, 120–126.Google Scholar
  165. Wulf, G., &Lee, T. D. (1993) Contextual interference effects in movements of the same class: Differential effects on program and parameter learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,25, 254–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Wulf, G., Lee, T. D., &Schmidt, R. A. (1994). Reducing knowledge of results about relative versus absolute timing: Differential effects on learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,26, 362–369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gärtner, M., & Schwarz, A. (in press). Feedback and attentional focus: Enhancing the learning of the volleyball serve through external-focus feedback.Journal of Motor Behavior.Google Scholar
  168. Wulf, G., McNevin, N. H., &Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 1143–1154.Google Scholar
  169. Wulf, G., &Schmidt, R. A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 748–757.Google Scholar
  170. Wulf, G., &Schmidt, R. A. (1994). Feedback-induced variability and the learning of generalized motor programs.Journal of Motor Behavior,26, 348–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., &Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1134–1150.Google Scholar
  172. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (1997). [Unpublished data.] Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich.Google Scholar
  173. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (1998). [Unpublished data]. Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich.Google Scholar
  174. Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., &Matschiner, S. (1998). Frequent feedback enhances complex motor skill learning.Journal of Motor Behavior,30, 180–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., &Park, J.-H. (2001). Attention in motor learning: PReferences for and advantages of an external focus.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,72, 335–344.Google Scholar
  176. Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., &Whitacre, C. A. (1998). Physical guidance benefits in learning a complex motor skill.Journal of Motor Behavior,30, 367–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. Wulf, G., Shea, J. B., &Rice, M. (1996). Type of KR and KR frequency effects on motor learning.Journal of Human Movement Studies,30, 1–18.Google Scholar
  178. Wulf, G., &Weigelt, C. (1997). Instructions about physical principles in learning a complex motor skill: To tell or not to tell.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport,68, 362–367.Google Scholar
  179. Yao, W.-X., Fischman, M. G., &Wang, Y. T. (1994). Motor skill acquisition and retention as a function of average feedback, summary feedback, and performance variability.Journal of Motor Behavior,26, 273–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. Young, D. E., Cohen, M. J., &Husak, W. S. (1993). Contextual interference and motor skill acquisition: On the processes that influence retention.Human Movement Science,12, 577–600.Google Scholar
  181. Zamani, M., &Richard, J. F. (2000). Object encoding, goal similarity, and analogical transfer.Memory & Cognition,28, 873–886.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas Vegas
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations