Diversification of motor skills rely upon an optimal amount of variability of perceptive and motor task demands

Abstract

In this study, motor skill was proposed as being organized into two hierarchical levels: macro- and microstructures, which would be responsible for the consistency and variability of actions, respectively. Constant practice was considered responsible for promoting the skill’s macrostructure formation and, following random practice, its diversification (microstructure). The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the number of items varied during random practice in order to promote diversification of the skill on the adaptive process of motor learning. A coincident timing complex task was manipulated in terms of perceptive (experiment 1), motor (experiment 2) and perceptive coupled with motor (experiment 3) requirements. In each experiment, 22 children were divided into two groups according to the amount of variability (three or six). Also, the design included two phases: stabilization and adaptation. Results showed that when the motor skill was diversified in relation to perceptive and motor demands separately (experiments 1 and 2), there were no differences between groups with variability of three and six parameters during the adaptation. No learning occurred for both groups in experiment 3. In conclusion, a minimum amount of variability in perceptive and motor task demands varying separately during practice (three variations) was enough to provide the needed flexibility for adaptation in the motor skill.

Keywords

Adaptive process variability of practice motor skill motor learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abernethy

Sparrow

W. A.

(1992). The rise and fall of dominant paradigms in motor behaviour research. In Summers

J. J.

(Ed.), Approaches to the study of motor control and learning (pp. 3–45). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.

Allen

T. F.

Starr

(1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Atlan

(1992). Entre o cristal e a fumaça. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Jorge Zahar.

Barreiros

Figueiredo

Godinho

(2011). The contextual interference effect in applied settings. European Physical Education Review, 13, 195–208.

Bernstein

N. A.

(1967). The coordination and regulation of movement. London, UK: Pergamon Press.

Berthouze

Lungarella

(2004). Motor skill acquisition under the environmental perturbations: On the necessary of alternative freezing and freeing of degrees of freedom. Adaptive Behavior, 12, 47–64.

Bilodeau

E. A.

Bilodeau

I. McD.

(1961). Motor skills learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 243–280.

Brady

(2004). Contextual interference: A meta-analytic study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 116–126.

Brady

(2008). The contextual interference effect and sport skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 461–472.

10.

Cattuzzo

M. T.

Tani

(2012). Effects of temporal stimuli in the acquisition of a serial tracking task. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 5, 65–70.

11.

Choshi

(1981). The significance of error response in adaptive systems. Sport Psychology Research, 7, 60–64 (in Japanese).

12.

Choshi

(1982). An analytical study of the adaptive process in motor learning. In Memoirs of the Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences III (Vol. 6, pp. 75–82). Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University Press (in Japanese).

13.

Choshi

(1985). Adaptive process of perceptual-motor learning: Complexity and complementarity. In Editor

(Ed.), Memoirs of the Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences VI (Vol. 3, pp. 21–30). Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University Press (in Japanese).

14.

Choshi

(2000). Aprendizagem motora como um problema mal definido [Motor learning as an ill-posed problem]. Revista Paulista de Educação Física, Suppl. 3, 16–23.

15.

Choshi

Tani

(1983). Stable system and adaptive system in motor learning. In Japanese Association of Biomechanics (Ed.), The science of movement (Vol. 5, pp. 346–351). Tokyo, Japan: Kiorin (in Japanese).

16.

Connolly

K. J.

(1977). The nature of motor skill development. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 3, 128–143.

17.

Connolly

K. J.

Forssberg

(1997). The neurobiology and psychology of motor development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Cook

N. D.

(1980). Stability and flexibility: An analysis of natural systems. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

19.

Corrêa

U. C.

Tani

(2005). Estrutura de prática e processo adaptativo em Aprendizagem motora: Por uma nova abordagem da prática [Practice schedule and adaptive process of motor learning: For a new practice theory]. In Tani

(Ed.), Comportamento motor: Aprendizagem e desenvolvimento [Motor behaviour: Learning and development] (pp. 141–161). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara-Koogan.

20.

Corrêa

U. C.

Alegre

F. A. M.

Freudenheim

A. M.

Santos

Tani

(2012). The game of futsal as an adaptive process. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16, 185–204.

21.

Corrêa

U. C.

Barros

J. A. C.

Massigli

Gonçalves

L. A.

Tani

(2007). A prática constante-aleatória e o processo adaptativo de aprendizagem motora: Efeitos da quantidade de prática constante. [The constant-random practice and the adaptive process of motor learning: Effects of amount of constant practice]. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, [Brazilian Journal of Physical Education and Sport]21, 301–314.

22.

Corrêa

U. C.

Benda

R. N.

Meira

C. M.

Jr. Tani

(2003). Practice schedule and adaptive process in the acquisition of a manual force control task. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 44, 121–138.

23.

Corrêa

U. C.

Gonçalves

L. A.

Barros

J. A. C.

Massigli

(2006). Prática constante-aleatória e aprendizagem motora: Efeitos da quantidade de prática constante e da manipulação de exigências motoras da tarefa. [Constant-random practice and motor learning: Effects of amount of constant practice and motor demands of task]. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 1, 41–52.

24.

Corrêa

U. C.

Massigli

Barros

J. A. C.

Gonçalves

L. A.

Oliveira

J. A.

Tani

(2010). Constant-random practice and the adaptive process in motor learning with varying amounts of constant practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110, 442–452.

25.

Corrêa

U. C.

Ugrinowitsch

Benda

R. N.

Tani

(2010). Effects of practice schedule on the adaptive process of motor learning. Portuguese Journal of Sport Sciences, 10, 158–171.

26.

Corrêa

U. C.

Walter

Torriani-Pasin

Barros

J. A. C.

Tani

(2014). Effects of the amount and schedule of varied practice after constant practice on the adaptive process of motor learning. Motricidade Journal, 10, 33–46.

27.

Davids

Bennett

Newell

(2006). Movement system variability. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

28.

Davids

Savelsbergh

Bennett

S. J.

van der KamNew

(2002). Interceptive actions in sport: Information and movement. New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Edwards

W. H.

(2010). Motor learning and control: From theory to practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

30.

Fonseca

F. S.

Benda

R. N.

Profeta

V. L. S.

Ugrinowitsch

(2012). Extensive practice improves adaptation to unpredictable perturbations in a sequential coincident timing task. Neuroscience Letters, 517, 123–127.

31.

Ford

D. H.

Lerner

R. M.

(1992). Developmental systems theory: An introduction approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

32.

Giuffrida

C. G.

Shea

J. B.

Fairbrother

J. T.

(2002). Differential transfer benefits of increased practice for constant, blocked, and serial practice schedules. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 353–365.

33.

Glencross

D. J.

(1980). Levels and strategies of response organization. In Stelmach

G. E.

Requin

(Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 551–566). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.

34.

Guadagnoli

M. A.

Lee

T. D.

(2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 212–224.

35.

Guthrie

E. R.

(1952). The psychology of learning. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

36.

Haken

(1983). Advanced synergetics: Instability hierarchies of self-organizing systems and devices. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

37.

Kauffman

S. A.

(1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

38.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1995) Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.

39.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2000). Principles of dynamic pattern formation and change for a science of human behavior. In Bergman

L. R.

Cairns

R. B.

Nilsson

L-G.

Nystedt

(Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 63–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2002). The complementary nature of coordination dynamics: Self-organization and agency. Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems, 5, 364–371.

41.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2006). Understanding Complex Systems. In Kaneko

(Eds.). Life: An introduction to complex systems biology. Series: Understanding Complex Systems. New York, NY: Springer.

42.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2012). Multistability and metastability: Understanding dynamic coordination in the brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 906–918.

43.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2013). Whither sport science? The challenge of understanding living movement. In Balagué

Torrents

Vilanova

Cadefau

Tarragó

Tsolakidis

(Eds.). Book of abstracts: 18th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (p. 352), Barcelona, Spain: European College of Sport Science.

44.

Kelso

J. A. S.

Engstrom

D. A.

(2006). The complementary nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

45.

Koestler

(1969). Beyond atomism and holism—The concept of the holon. In Koestler

Smythies . (Eds.), Beyond reductionism. London, UK: Hutchinson & Co.

46.

Kohl

R. M.

Ben-David

H. A.

(1998). (Non)Issues of infinite regress in modeling motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 94–96.

47.

Kostrubiec

Zanone

P. G.

Fuchs

Kelso

J. A. S.

(2012). Beyond the blank slate: Routes to learning new coordination patterns depend on the intrinsic dynamics of the learner—Experimental evidence and theoretical model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6, 1–14.

48.

Lai

Shea

C. H.

(1998). Generalized motor program (GMP) learning: Effects of reduced frequency of knowledge of results and practice variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 51–59.

49.

Lai

Shea

C. H.

Wulf

Wright

D. L.

(2000). Optimizing generalized motor program and parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 10–24.

50.

Landin

Hebert

(1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 357–361.

51.

Langton

C. G.

(1992). Life at the edge of chaos. In Langton

C. G.

Taylor

Farmer

J. D.

Rasmussen

(Eds.), Artificial life II: SFI studies in the sciences of complexity V. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.

52.

Latash

M. L.

Danion

Scholz

J. F.

Schöner

(2003). Coordination of multi-element motor systems based on motor abundance. Progress in Motor Control, 3, 97–124

53.

Latash

M. L.

Scholz

J. P.

Schöner

(2002). Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 30, 26–31.

54.

Lewin

(1993). Complexity: Life on the edge of chaos. London, UK: Phoenix.

55.

Magill

R. A.

Hall

K. G.

(1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241–289.

56.

Manoel

E. J.

Basso

Corrêa

U. C.

Tani

(2002). Modularity and hierarchical organization of action programs in human acquisition of graphic skills. Neuroscience Letters, 335, 83–86.

57.

Newell

Corcos

(1993). Variability and motor control. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

58.

Newell

K. M.

(2003). Schema theory (1975): Retrospectives and prospectives. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 383–388.

59.

Newell

K. M.

Slifkin

A. B.

(1998). The nature of movement variability. In Piek

J. P.

(Ed.), Motor behavior and human skill: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 143–160). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

60.

Packard

N. H.

(1988). Adaptation toward the edge of chaos. In Kelso

J. A. S.

Mandel

A. J.

Shlesinger

M. F.

(Eds.), Dynamic patterns in complex systems (pp. 293–301). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

61.

Porter

J. M.

Magill

R. A.

(2010). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1277–1285.

62.

Riley

M. A.

Turvey

M. T.

(2002). Variability and determinism in motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 99–125.

63.

Salthe

S. N.

(1985). Evolving hierarchical systems: Their structure and representation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

64.

Salthe

S. N.

(1992). Hierarchical non-equilibrium self-organization as the new post-cybernetic perspective. In Vijver

G. V.

(Ed.), New perspectives on cybernetics: Self-organization, autonomy and connectionism. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

65.

Savelsbergh

G. J. P.

Whiting

H. T. A.

(1996). Catching: A motor learning and developmental perspective. In Heuer

Keele

S. W.

(Eds.). Handbook of Perception and Action. Volume 2: Motor skills. (pp. 461–502). London, UK: Academic Press.

66.

Schmidt

(1985). The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 188–200.

67.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.

68.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1976). The schema as a solution to some persistent problems in motor learning theory. In Stelmach

G.E.

(Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York, NY: Academic Press.

69.

Schmidt

R.A.

(1982). The schema concept. In Kelso

J.A.S.

(Ed.), Human motor behavior: An introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

70.

Schmidt

R. A.

(2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366–375.

71.

Schöllhorn

W. I.

Mayer-Kress

Newell

K. M.

Michelbrink

(2009). Time scales of adaptive behavior and motor learning in the presence of stochastic perturbations. Human Movement Science, 28, 319–333.

72.

Schöner

G. S.

Zanone

P. G.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1992). Learning as change of coordination dynamics: theory and experiment. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 29–48.

73.

Sekiya

Magill

R. A.

Sidaway

Anderson

D. I.

(1994). The contextual interference effect for skill variations from the same and different generalized motor programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 65, 330–338.

74.

Shea

C. H.

Lai

Wright

D. L.

Immink

Black

(2001). Consistent and variable practice conditions: Effects on relative and absolute timing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 139–152.

75.

Slifkin

A. B.

Newell

K. M.

(1998). Is variability in human performance a reflection of system noise?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 170–177.

76.

Summers

J. J.

(1989). Motor programs. In Holding

D. H.

(Ed.), Human skills2 (pp. 49–69). Chichester: John Whiley & Sonspp.

77.

Summers

J. J.

(1992). Movement behavior: A field in crisis? In Summers

J. J.

(Ed.), Approaches to the study of motor control and learning (pp. 551–562). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

78.

Summers

J. J.

Anson

J. G.

(2009). Current status of the motor program: Revisited. Human Movement Science, 28, 566–577.

79.

Tani

(1995). Hierarchical organization of an action programme and the development of skilled actions. Unpublished Technical Report. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, Department of Psychology.

80.

Tani

(2005). Processo adaptativo: Uma concepção de aprendizagem motora além da estabilização [Adaptive process: A motor learning conception beyond stabilization]. In Tani

(Ed.), Comportamento motor: Aprendizagem e desenvolvimento [Motor behaviour: Learning and development] (pp. 60–70). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan.

81.

Tani

Corrêa

U. C.

Basso

Benda

R. N.

Ugrinowitsch

Choshi

(2014). An adaptive process model of motor learning: Insights for the teaching of motor skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 18, 47–65.

82.

Todorov

Jordan

M. I.

(2002). Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature Neuroscience5, 1226–1235.

83.

Turvey

M. T.

(1977). Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. In Shaw

Bransford

(Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 211–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

84.

Ugrinowitsch

Tani

(2004). Perceptive perturbation in different levels of performance’s stabilization and adaptive process in motor learning. The FIEP Bulletin, 74, 38–41.

85.

Ugrinowitsch

Benda

R. N.

Corrêa

U. C.

Tani

(2014). Extensive practice improves adaptation to predictable perturbations in a sequential coincident timing task. American Journal of Life Sciences, 2, 90–95.

86.

Ugrinowitsch

Fialho

Fonseca

Profeta

Albuquerque

Benda

R. N.

(2010). Effects of perceptive perturbation and level of stabilization in motor learning adaptability. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41, S.113–S.114.

87.

Ugrinowitsch

Santos-Naves

S. P.

Carbinatto

M. V.

Benda

R. N.

Tani

(2011). Motor skill adaptation depends on the level of learning. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6, 177–181.

88.

van Emmerik

R. E. A.

van Wegen

E. E. H.

(2002). On the functional aspects of variability in postural control. Exercise and Sport Science Review, 30, 177–183.

89.

van Rossum

J. H.A.

(1990). Schmidt’s schema theory: The empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis. Human Movement Science, 9, 387–435.

90.

von Bertalanffy

(1950). The open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 23–29.

91.

von Bertalanffy

(1952). Problems of life. London, UK: Watts.

92.

von Foester

(1960). On the self-organizing systems and their environments. In Yovits

M.C.

Cameron

(Eds.), Self-organizing systems (pp. 31–50). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

93.

Waldrop

M. M.

(1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London, UK: Penguin Books.

94.

Weiss

P. A.

(1967). 1+1≠2 (One plus one does not equal two). In Quarton

Melnechuk

Schimitt

F. O.

(Eds.), The neurosciences: A study program (pp. 801–821). New York, NY: The Rockefeller University Press.

95.

Weiss

P. A.

(1969). Living systems: Determinism stratified. In Koestler

Smythies

J. R.

(Eds.), Beyond reductionism (pp. 3–42). London, UK: Hutchinson.

96.

Weiss

P. A.

(1971). The basic concept of hierarchic systems. In Weiss

P. A.

(Ed.), Hierarchically organised systems in theory and practice. New York, NY: Hafner.

97.

Whiting

H. T. A.

(1975). Concepts in skill learning. London, UK: Lepus.

98.

Williams

L. R. T.

Jasiewicz

Simmons

R. W.

(2001). Coincidence timing of finger, arm, and whole body movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 535–47.

99.

Yates

F. E.

(Ed.). (1987). Self-organizing systems: The emergence of order. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

100.

Zanone

P. G.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1992). Learning and transfer as dynamical paradigms for behavioral change. In Stelmach

G.E.

Requin

(Eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior II (pp. 563–582). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

101.

Zanone

P. G.

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1997). Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: collective and component levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1454–1480.