No abstract

No abstract

Background: The benefits of variable practice in motor learning have been traditionally explained by the increased demand for memory processes induced by trial-to-trial changes. Recently, a new perspective associating increased demand for perception with variable practice has emerged. Aim: This revision aims to present and discuss the findings in this exciting topic newly opened. Results / Interpretation: In the second half of 2010’s, a number of studies have pointed out differences in perceptual processing when compared variable and repetitive practices. Different levels of (a) hemodynamic activation, (b) electroencephalographic activity, (c) neurochemical activity, and (d) oculomotor behavior have provided evidence that perceptual processes are affected differently by variable and repetitive practices.

No abstract

Many studies have attributed self-controlled feedback benefits associated with motor learning to learners' greater information processing during practice. However, individual learner characteristics like their impulsivity can also influence how people engage cognitively during learning. We investigated possible dissociations between the types of interaction in self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) and learner impulsivity levels in learning a sequential motor task. Ninety volunteers responded to the self-restraint section of the Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale, and those 60 participants with the highest (n ¼ 30) and lowest (n ¼ 30) impulsivity scores practiced a motor task involving sequential pressing of four keys in predetermined absolute and relative times. We further divided participants into four experimental groups by assigning the high-and low-impulsivity groups to two forms of KR-selfcontrolled absolute and yoked. Study results showed no interaction effect between impulsivity and self-controlled KR, and, contrary to expectation, self-controlled KR did not benefit learning, independently of impulsivity. However, low-impulsivity participants performed better than high-impulsivity participants on the absolute dimension of the transfer task, while high-impulsivity learners were better at the relative