The authors used an interference paradigm to determine the extent to which the learning of 2 similar movement sequences influences the learning of each other. Participants (N=30) produced the sequences by moving a lever with their right arm and hand to sequentially presented target locations. They practiced 2 similar 16-element movement sequences (S1 and S2), 1 sequence on each of 2 consecutive days of practice. Control groups received only 1 day of practice on 1 of the sequences. Early in S2 practice, the experimental group demonstrated a relatively strong level of proactive facilitation arising from previous practice with S1. The advantage was not evident at the end of S2 practice or on the S2 retention test. No advantage of practicing the 1st sequence on the learning of the 2nd sequence (proactive effect) was found in the analysis of element duration in the retention and transfer tests, even though 14 of the 16 elements were common to both sequences. A strong retroactive interference on the switched elements was detected, however. Thus, the memories underpinning S1 seemed to be "overwritten" or adapted in response to the learning of S2.

The ability of spatial transfer to occur in movement sequences is reflected upon in theoretical perspectives, but limited research has been done to verify to what extent spatial characteristics of a sequential learning task occur. Three experiments were designed to determine participants' ability to transfer a learned movement sequence to new spatial locations. A 16-element dynamic arm movement sequence was used in all experiments. The task required participants to move a horizontal lever to sequentially

A 16-element movement sequence was taught under part-whole and whole-practice conditions. Participants (N = 18) produced a right-arm lever movement to sequentially presented target locations. The authors constructed part-whole practice by providing practice on only the 1st 8 elements on the 1st day of practice (100 repetitions of the 8-element sequence) and on all 16 elements on the 2nd day of practice (100 repetitions of the 16-element sequence). The whole-practice group practiced all 16 elements on both days (100 repetitions of the 16-element sequence per day). No differences in sequence structure or in movement duration of the 16-element sequence were noted on the retention test (Day 3). On transfer tests in which the 1st and last 8 elements were tested separately, however, the participants in the part-whole practice group performed more quickly than the participants in the whole-practice group, especially on the last 8 elements. Participants in the whole-practice group appeared to code the sequence so that it was relatively difficult to fully partition it into separate movements. Thus, on the transfer tests, there continued to be residual effects of the 8 elements that did not have to be produced but slowed down the rate of responding for the whole-practice group. That finding was not observed for the part-whole practice group.