1 / 41

Practice schedules: Impact on movement planning and execution

Practice schedules: Impact on movement planning and execution. David L. Wright Elouise Beard Smith Human Performance Laboratory Texas A&M University http://digby.tamu.edu. Collaborators. Charles Black SUNY-Brockport Sebastian Brueckner Universit ä t des Saarlandes

fredericka-harvey
Download Presentation

Practice schedules: Impact on movement planning and execution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practice schedules: Impact on movement planning and execution David L. Wright Elouise Beard Smith Human Performance Laboratory Texas A&M University http://digby.tamu.edu

  2. Collaborators Charles Black SUNY-Brockport Sebastian Brueckner Universität des Saarlandes Maarten Immink Australian Catholic University Yuhua Li University of Memphis Curt Magnuson Texas A&M University Charles Shea Texas A&M University

  3. Adapted from Lee & Magill (1983), JEP: LM & C, 9, 730-746

  4. Explanations • Elaborative processing (Shea & Zimny, 1983; 1985) • focuses on structure and richness of memory representations • Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee & Magill, 1983;1985) • Emphasizes the cognitive procedures executed during a practice trial

  5. Forgetting-reconstruction • Short-term memory paradigm • Lee, Weeks, & Elliott, 1987; Weeks & Lee, 1987; but see Shea & Wright, 1991 • Learning Paradigm • Lee, Wishart, Cunningham, & Carnahan, 1996 • Dual-task paradigm • Li & Wright, 2000 • Self-select paradigm • Immink & Wright, 1998; 2001

  6. Li & Wright (2000) QJEP,53A, 591-606

  7. THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL READY READY READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah Precue dit-dit-dah-dah Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key END Key END Key “GO” “GO” “GO” Key press 1 Key press 1 Key press 1 STUDY TIME (ST) STUDY TIME (ST) STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) REACTIONTIME (RT) REACTIONTIME (RT) ..... ..... ..... time time time INT PROCESS INT PROCESS INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS SEQ PROCESS SEQ PROCESS Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Self-Select Paradigm READY Precue “4L” END Key “GO” Key press 1 STUDY TIME REACTIONTIME ..... Immink & Wright (1998) QJEP, 51, 735-754 READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key “GO” Key press 1 READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key “GO” Key press 1 STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) ..... ..... time time INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS

  8. Study time is expected to be greater during random practice during acquisition

  9. Study time is expected to be greater during random practice EEG

  10. Reconstruction: What is it? • Programming as retrieval in sense of reconstruction RT may depend on the time required to retrieve programs from long-term memory (LTM)……. Retrieval time may increase as a function of the complexity of the response because of differences in the time required to reconstruct a response representation from a code in LTM. Klapp, 1996, p.14

  11. Klapp’s (1995; 1996) two-process model of motor programming process • INT process focuses on the internal features of an element or chunk of movement and the time to resolve this component process depends on the complexity of the chunk (e.g., duration of response) • SEQ process focuses on sequencing multiple chunks into the correct order. This component process is determined by the number of chunks SRT-CRT

  12. Klapp’s (1995; 1996) two-process model of motor programming process Important assumptions • Pre-programming of INT is possible • Pre-programming of SEQ is not possible • INT and SEQ can occur in parallel • INT takes longer to complete than SEQ

  13. THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL THE SELF-SELECT PARADIGM AND KLAPP”S MODEL READY READY READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah Precue dit-dit-dah-dah Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key END Key END Key “GO” “GO” “GO” Key press 1 Key press 1 Key press 1 STUDY TIME (ST) STUDY TIME (ST) STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) REACTIONTIME (RT) REACTIONTIME (RT) ..... ..... ..... time time time INT PROCESS INT PROCESS INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS SEQ PROCESS SEQ PROCESS Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Figure 1. Self-select paradigm separately assesses latencies associated for INT and SEQ processes. A trial begins with the “ready” signal being presented. Shortly after, the individual is provided a precue revealing the sequence that should be readied. Study time (ST) is defined as the interval between the presentation of a precue informing the participant of the nature of the upcoming responses and the participant pressing the “End” key. This interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the INT motor programming process. Following the depression of the “END” key a variable fore-period occurs prior to the presentation of the “GO” signal. RT is defined as the interval between the presentation of the “GO” signal and the depression of the appropriate response key. The RT interval is assumed to capture the temporal demands of the motor programming process labeled SEQ. Self-Select Paradigm READY Precue “4L” END Key “GO” Key press 1 STUDY TIME REACTIONTIME ..... INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key “GO” Key press 1 READY Precue dit-dit-dah-dah END Key “GO” Key press 1 STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) STUDY TIME (ST) REACTIONTIME (RT) ..... ..... time time INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS INT PROCESS SEQ PROCESS

  14. General Tasks • Single-element • dit (150 ms); dah (450 ms) INT SEQ • Multiple-element • dit-dah-dah-dit • dah-dit-dit-dah

  15. Table 1. Study time, reaction time, press duration and error for dit and dah responses. M SEM Study Time dit 1051 ** 50.7 (ST) dah 1405 82.0 Reaction Time dit 259 3.9 (RT) dah 259 3.6 Press Duration dit 138 ** 2.7 (PD) dah 433 3.1 ** indicates significant difference at the .05 level. Note. SEM is standard error of mean. • ST but not RT is expected to be greater for longer duration response

  16. ST is expected to be greater for longer duration response in random practice Immink & Wright, JEP:HPP, 27, 423-437

  17. RT should not differ between short and long duration responses for both practice conditions

  18. Random practice should exhibit superior performance during retention but poorer performance during acquisition

  19. RT should be greater for the multiple-element response in the case of both practice conditions

  20. ST should be greater for the multiple-element response but only in the case of random practice

  21. ST is expected to be greater for the longer duration response in random practice

  22. RT should not differ between short and long duration responses for both practice conditions

  23. Klapp (1995, Experiment 1): SRT CHUNKING Adapted from Klapp, 1995

  24. Adapted from Klapp, 1995

  25. Explanations • Elaborative processing (Shea & Zimny, 1983; 1985) • focuses on structure and richness of memory representations • Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee & Magill, 1983;1985) • Emphasizes the cognitive procedures executed during a practice trial

  26. One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference should diminished with practice in random condition.

  27. One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference should not be diminished with practice. Sequence Structure

  28. Table 2b. Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition

  29. Note: 1S = dit, 1L = dah, 4S = dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L = dah-dit-dit-dah

  30. Summary • High CI: • Involves greater engagement of motor programming during practice resulting in: • equal if not superior execution of sequential tasks (cf. low CI) with lower cost (INT component). • consolidation of multiple element sequences which presumably contributes to the efficiency of producing these sequences

  31. What’s next ? • Why stop at response programming? • Perceptual processes • Indirect evidence (Fendrich, Healy, & Bourne, 1991) • Response selection/translation • Indirect evidence (Pashler & Baylis 1991 a & b; Verway, 1999) • Direct evidence (Barbariche, Blandin, & Audiffren, submitted)

  32. What’s next? • Sequential movements and Parkinson’s disease (PD) • INT but not SEQ process should be intact? (Marsden, 1982) • Switching/transitions between elements in PD is disrupted • Utility of particular practice regimes for individuals with PD

  33. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

  34. (Adapted from Klapp, 1995)

  35. Taken from Verway (1999), JEP:HP&P, 25, 1693-1708

More Related