Habit-Interference as Dependent upon Stage of Training

Negative efficacy of fixed gain error reducing shared control for training in virtual environments

“…Interference and consolidation are closely affected by the similarity of the stimulus-response mapping between primary dynamics and secondary dynamics, and the greater the differences between primary and secondary tasks, the more severe the interference becomes. It has also been reported that interference decreases with increased learning of the primary dynamics [Siipola and Israel 1993], which supports the observed learning trend of the shared control (A) group. In the literature, increasing the amount of practice time for primary and secondary dynamics or introduction of consolidation time between practice sessions with two distinct dynamics are suggested as solutions to reduce such interference effects [Shadmehr et al 1995;Brashers-Krug et al 1996].…”

“…One possible explanation may be that the reduced amount of exposure to the shared control algorithm reduced the interference effect. This may have been achieved through extended practice with the unmodified dynamics, as suggested in Siipola and Israel [1993]. As depicted in Figure 10, as well as in Figures 6 through 7, the strategy (S) group follows similar performance trends to that of the no assistance (N) group from session 2 to session 5.…”

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Training Devices: Literature Review and Preliminary Model

“…Taking both effects together, it would be expected that maximum interference would take place when both tasks A and B are at early stages of practice. Such an effect was in fact I reported early in the literature of transfer (Siipola & Israel, 1933), and has never been experimentally refutcd. It appears reason-be to assuen that maximum interference will arise at the stage when the input and output variables in both tasks are at a low level of di.criminabllity.…”

Proactive effects in meaningful verbal learning and retention.

“…The principal problem in the present experiment was to ascertain whether, in accordance with this same theoretical formulation of meaningful learning and retention, similar ideational material introduced proactively (rather than retroactively) has a facilitating, or at least a neutral, transfer effect on meaningful retention, in contrast to the uniformly negative effect which similar materials have been shown to have on the retention of serial and paired-associate tasks learned by rote (Atwater, 1953;Handler, 1954;Siipola & Israel, 1933;Underwood, 1949;Young & Underwood, 1954). To parallel further the chief variables investigated in rote retention, the transfer effect of overlearning of the proactively learned material on the retention of the meaningfully learned learning task was also ascertained.…”