Task engagement and mental workload involved in variation and repetition of a motor skill

Abstract

Explanatory hypotheses proposed in behavioral studies assumed that less repetitive practice schedules, such as random practice, seem to demand greater cognitive effort than more repetitive types of practice organization, such as constant. All of these hypotheses emphasize the enhanced demand to memory processes promoted by less repetitive practice schedules. In the present study, we investigated the cognitive effort involved in random and constant practice schedules with an electrophysiological approach. Twenty-one male participants practiced a sequential key-pressing task with two goals: learning the relative timing dimension and learning the absolute timing dimension. Sixty trials were performed in a constant practice schedule (only one absolute timing goal), and sixty trials were performed in random order (three absolute timing goals). Two electroencephalography based measures of cognitive states were used: (a) task engagement (sensory processing and attention resources) and (b) mental workload (working memory load). The results showed that random practice induced greater cognitive effort than constant practice when task engagement was analyzed. Throughout practice, both task engagement and mental workload decreased more in the constant practice condition than in the random practice condition. The increased demand for sensory processing observed in random practice opens a new exciting field of study in practice organization.

Untitled

“…The formation of strengthened general schemes, however, did not occur with such quality on the variable practice with a smaller quantity of variations condition, since it failed to overcome the constant practice condition in the transfer to a novel skill. Thus, our results supports the variability of practice hypothesis, in which is expected that variable practice would lead to a varied experience that leads to increased schema strength during the acquisition phase, thereby driving to a better transfer of learning (Schmidt, 1975;Moxley, 1979;Van Rossum, 1990;Lage et al, 2015;Lelis-Torres et al, 2017;Bicalho et al, 2019). The most important aspect to be discussed from the results of this study refers to the quantity of practice variation offered to learners so that they can benefit from the variable practice condition, since smaller quantity of variation were not as efficient as larger quantity of variation during acquisition in the transfer to a novel skill.…”

“…In general, they confirm the variability of practice hypothesis. Apart from them, most studies have investigated this subject comparing a group of constant practice with a single group of variable practice, usually with three variations of a single skill (Van Rossum, 1990; Lelis-Torres, Ugrinowitsch, Apolinário-Souza Benda & Lage, 2017;Bicalho et al, 2019). However, the experimental design that consists of a group of constant practice and a single variable practice group with three variations does not allow a deep understanding of the importance of different quantities of variable practice to the transfer to a novel skill.…”

Self-Controlled Feedback and Learner Impulsivity in Sequential Motor Learning

“…Future studies should further investigate differences in perceptual and cognitive load when the learner has the option to ask or not for KR and their relation to information processing styles. Perceptual load is known to be associated with allocating processing resources of information gathering, visual scanning, and sustained attention, and cognitive load is related to working memory load, integration of information, and problem-solving (Lelis-Torres et al, 2017) The study of processing styles usually gives more emphasis to the processes involved in performance than to the level of performance (Messick, 1994), but the present study contributes to an understanding of how individual differences in processing influence motor learning performance. Despite not finding expected interactions between impulsive and controlled styles of processing and types of KR on our two performance measures, we observed relevant findings regarding processes involved in motor learning.…”

“…The same dynamic strategy might be expected when a motor task requires learning more than one spatial or temporal goal. For example, sequential tasks can require both the learning of relative times between movement components (movement pattern) and the parallel learning of an absolute time (movement parameterization), characterized by the sum of each component time (Apolina´rio-Souza et al, 2016;Lage et al, 2017;Lai, Shea, Wulf, & Wright, 2000;Lelis-Torres, Ugrinowitsch, Apolinario-Souza, Benda, & Lage, 2017;Shea, Lai, Wright, Immink, & Black, 2001). In this type of motor task, the use of a dynamic information processing strategy is essential to learning.…”

A secondary task is not always costly: Context‐based guidance of visual search survives interference from a demanding working memory task

“…Such a view has been expressed previously, albeit in relation to other forms of procedural (motor) learning (see, e.g., Lee & Magill, ). With regard to these, the idea is (see also Lelis‐Torres, Ugrinowitsch, Apolinário‐Souza, Benda, & Lage, ) that demanding (i.e., alternating) training schedules increase observers’ need for monitoring the (visual) learning material in order to track the differences between individual learning episodes (trials), and thus keep motor performance at an optimal level. Applied to the current dual‐task training regime, it is possible that observers had great difficulty with this schedule at first and had to devote all available capacity to the processing of the various trial events (auditory WM display, spatial WM display, search display; see Figure ).…”