Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills

Abstract

To better understand the contextual interference effect, in two experiments we investigated a form of practice schedule that provided novices with systematic increases in contextual interference. This new type of practice schedule was compared with traditional blocked and random scheduling for two types of sports skills. In Experiment 1, we tested the hypothesis that practising variations of the same task with systematic increases in contextual interference would lead to superior performance compared with blocked or random scheduling. Participants practised golf putting tasks following a blocked, random or increasing schedule, which involved initial blocked trials, followed by serial practice trials, and ended with random scheduling. Participants who followed the increasing schedule had superior retention test performance. In Experiment 2, we tested if these learning benefits were observed when learning tasks controlled by different generalized motor programs. Participants practised three different basketball passes (chest, overhead, single arm) in a blocked, random or increasing schedule. Participants practising with gradual increases in contextual interference performed better on retention and transfer tests than participants practising with blocked or random scheduling. The results of these two expe

Evidence for biomechanics and motor learning research improving golf performance

“…Specifically, Goodwin and Meeuwsen (1996) found that during the transfer test, the random and block-random groups performed significantly better than the block group at the longer 6.23-m distance. Similarly, Porter and Magill (2010) found that the combination (Increasing) group performed significantly better than the block and random groups in retention testing and significantly better than the random group in transfer testing. Guadagnoli et al (1999) reported a significant interaction between skill and type of practice, whereby novice golfers significantly improved their putting accuracy more through block practice, whereas experienced golfers improved significantly more through random practice.…”

“…The three studies involving block and random practice differed in the number of acquisition days (1-4), but all involved novice golfers performing putting tasks over three distances, with a retention and/or transfer test a day after acquisition. In general, Goodwin and Meeuwsen (1996) and Porter and Magill (2010) reported no significant difference in putting error between the block and random groups in the retention and transfer tests across all three assessed distances. There were however some exceptions to this generalisation.…”

“…Six motor learning studies (see Table 2) compared the learning effects of altering the structure of the golf practice session via massed versus distributed practice (Dail & Christina, 2004), block versus random practice (Goodwin & Meeuwsen, 1996;Guadagnoli, Holcomb, & Weber, 1999;Porter & Magill, 2010) as well as errorless versus errorfull practice (Lam, Maxwell, & Masters, 2010;Maxwell, Masters, Kerr, & Weedon, 2001). …”

“…Three studies (Goodwin & Meeuwsen, 1996;Guadagnoli, et al, 1999;Porter & Magill, 2010) directly compared the learning benefits of blocked and random practice on golf putting by randomly allocating subjects to blocked or random practice groups.…”

“…Additionally, Goodwin and Meeuwsen (1996) and Porter and Magill (2010) included combination groups that started their acquisition phase with block practice and finished with variations of random practice. The three studies involving block and random practice differed in the number of acquisition days (1-4), but all involved novice golfers performing putting tasks over three distances, with a retention and/or transfer test a day after acquisition.…”