150 likes | 443 Views
Contextual interference. …and the bench press. Simple vs. Complex skills. This paper proposes a relationship for tasks that do or do not benefit from CI (see pages 187-189). Simple vs. Complex skills. “Complex” tasks supporting CI effects: Kayak roll, badminton serve
E N D
Contextual interference …and the bench press
Simple vs. Complex skills • This paper proposes a relationship for tasks that do or do not benefit from CI (see pages 187-189)
Simple vs. Complex skills • “Complex” tasks supporting CI effects: • Kayak roll, badminton serve • “Complex” tasks with equivocal findings: • Bimanual coordination, badminton serve, volleyball skills • “Complex” tasks not supporting CI effects: • Tennis serve, several studies using children, • Variations in complexity • Albaret & Thon (1999) – simple task showed CI effect, difficult task did not (# line drawing segments) • Shea et al – when processing RT and absolute time, CI effect disappears. Reappears when processing only absolute time.
Simple vs. Complex skills • Complexity from elaboration standpoint (p. 189): So, with complex tasks the multiple elements of the task ensure elaboration – high levels of intratask processing rather than intertask processing
Simple vs. Complex skills • Taken together: • If the task is simple, increasing complexity of practice schedule can have positive effects • If the task is complex, increasing complexity of practice schedule can have neutral or even negative effects • So, what is complexity? • # components? • # degrees of freedom? • Phase relationship between moving parts? • This is a problem!
So to the bench press… • Quick note on the CI paradigm • Tasks are either practiced separately (blocked) or interspersed (random) • It’s this which manipulates processing type and reconstruction need
Naimo et al. • Practiced bench press and dart throwing • 4 sets bench press, 4 sets dart throwing. • LCI: all sets of each task completed in one block • HCI: one set of bench press, one set of dart throwing…repeat 4 x • DV for bench press • 1RM • Checklist (score /13) • Coordination? • Complexity? • DV for dart throw • CE, VE (1D measures??)
Naimo et al. • Findings… HCI improved from post to retention, LCI did not…CI effect? No differences in checklist scores between HCI and LCI anywhere NB – no effects at all for dart throwing…CI effect?
Onto attentional focus… • Previous thoughts on automaticity… • “Errorless” learning
Onto attentional focus… • Previous thoughts on automaticity… • “Errorless” learning
Onto attentional focus… • Previous thoughts on automaticity… • AF in bicep curl (Marchant, JSCR, 2009)
Kal et al. (2013) • Within subject design (30 s) • Foot movement, letter fluency • Single task, dual task • Internal, external • Differences in movement duration, Dual task cost, EMG… • Movement more fluid, less prone to cost due to secondary task, when attention externally focused • Entirely consistent with previous findings