The effect of contextual interference on the learning of adapted sailing for people with spinal cord injury

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of contextual interference on learning of adapted sailing for people with spinal cord injury. Seven participants with traumatic spinal injury were selected to undergo learning in an adapted boat equipped with wind-measuring instrument. A learning program, defined by two conditions, (1) blocked practice and (2) random practice, was applied. In blocked schedule, fixed sequence of two maneuvers consist of tacking on a close-hauled course (45°–55°) and gybing on a broad reaching course (135°–145°). In random schedule, the same maneuvers were carried out randomly. Eight 30-min practice sessions were carried out over a period of 2 weeks, in 3 days per week. Velocity Made Good was analyzed in the familiarization test, pre-test, post-test, and retention test. The learning program was effective in both random and blocked practice conditions on all participants. However, there is an evident variability in the results. This study demonstrates the suitability of applying contextual interference to facilitate the learning of adapted sailing. The variability of the results could be related to the heterogeneity of the participants and suggests the need for further research that can provide information about how restricted mobility affects the learning process.

Keywords

Sailing learning navigation spinal cord injury variability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnal

del Rincón

Latorre

(1992). Educational research: foundations and methodologies. Labor.

Barreiros

Figueiredo

Godinho

(2007). The contextual interference effect in applied settings. European Physical Education Review, 13(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07076876

Bertollo

Berchicci

Carraro

Comani

Robazza

(2010). Blocked and random practice organization in the learning of rhythmic dance step sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.110.1

Brady

(2004). Contextual interference: A meta-analytic study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.99.1.116-126

Broadbent

D. P.

Causer

Williams

A. M.

Ford

P. R.

(2015). Perceptual-cognitive skill training and its transfer to expert performance in the field: Future research directions. European Journal of Sport Science, 15, 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.957727

Campbell

J. M.

Herzinger

C. V.

(2010). Statistics and single subject research methodology. In Gast

D. L.

(Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 417–453). Routledge.

Cheong

J. P.

Lay

Razman

(2016). Investigating the contextual interference effect using combination sports skills in open and closed skill environments. Journal of Sport Science & Medicine, 15(1), 167–175.

Cross

E. S.

Schmitt

P. J.

Grafton

S. T.

(2007). Neural substrates of contextual interference during motor learning support a model of active preparation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1854–1871. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1854

Davids

Button

Bennett

(2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.

10.

Day

K. V.

Kautz

S. A.

S. S.

Suter

S. P.

Behrman

A. L.

(2012). Foot placement variability as a walking balance mechanism post-spinal cord injury. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(2), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.001

11.

Duarte

Culver

D. M.

(2014). Becoming a coach in developmental adaptive sailing: A lifelong learning perspective. Journal Applied of Sport Psychology, 26(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.920935

12.

Farrow

Buszard

(2017). Exploring the applicability of the contextual interference effect in sports practice. In Progress in brain research (Vol. 234, pp. 69–83). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.07.002

13.

Feghhi

Valizade

(2011). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning single task. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2191–2193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.425

14.

Frank

T. D.

Michelbrink

Beckmann

Schöllhorn

W. I.

(2008). A quantitative dynamical systems approach to differential learning: Self-organization principle and order parameter equations. Biological Cybernetics, 98(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-007-0193-x

15.

Glazier

P. S.

Davids

Bartlett

R. M.

(2003). Dynamical systems theory: A relevant framework for performance-oriented sports biomechanics research. Sportscience, 7, 8.

16.

Granda-Vera

Alvarez

J. C. B.

Medina

M. M.

(2008). Effects of different practice conditions on acquisition, retention, and transfer of soccer skills by 9-year-old schoolchildren. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(2), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.2.447-460

17.

Graser

J. V.

Bastiaenen

C. H.

van Hedel

H. J.

(2019). The role of the practice order: A systematic review about contextual interference in children. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0209979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209979

18.

Guadagnoli

M. A.

Holcomb

W. R.

Weber

T. J.

(1999). The relationship between contextual interference effects and performer expertise on the learning of a putting task. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 37(1), 19–36.

19.

Hebert

E. P.

Landin

Solmon

M. A.

(1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low-and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly of Exercise & Sport, 67(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607925

20.

Jacobson

N. S.

Truax

(1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12

21.

E. J.

Noh

D. H.

Kam

K. Y.

(2020). Effects of contextual interference on feeding training in patients with stroke. Human Movement Science, 69, 102560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2019.102560

22.

Jones

L. L.

French

K. E.

(2007). Effects of contextual interference on acquisition and retention of three volleyball skills. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 105, 883–890. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.105.7.883-890

23.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice. New opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. American Psychologist, 63, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.146

24.

Latash

M. L.

(2010). Stages in learning motor synergies: A view based on the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Human Movement Science, 29(5), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.11.002

25.

Lee

T. D.

Magill

R. A.

(1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology & Learning, 9(4), 730–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.730

26.

Lee

T. D.

Magill

R. A.

(1985). On the nature of movement representation in memory. British Journal of Psychology, 76(2), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01940.x

27.

Vaczi

(1999). The locus of contextual interference effect: Motoric or perceptual. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, S–76.

28.

Lin

C. H. J.

Knowlton

B. J.

Chiang

M. C.

Iacoboni

Udompholkul

A. D.

(2011). Brain-behavior correlates of optimizing learning through interleaved practice. NeuroImage, 56(3), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.066

29.

Lin

C. H. J.

Yang

H. C.

Knowlton

B. J.

A. D.

Iacoboni

Y. L.

. . . Chiang

M. C.

(2018). Contextual interference enhances motor learning through increased resting brain connectivity during memory consolidation. NeuroImage, 181, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.081

30.

Magill

R. A.

(2011). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications. 8th ed.

McGraw Hill.

31.

Merbah

Meulemans

(2011). Learning a motor skill: Effects of blocked versus random practice: A review. Psychologica Belgica, 51(1), 15–48. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-51-1-15

32.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

(2009). An improved effect size for single case research: Non-Overlap of All Pairs (NAP). Behavioral Therapy, 40, 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006

33.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: areview of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322.

34.

Pesce

Croce

Ben-Soussan

T. D.

Vazou

McCullick

Tomporowski

P. D.

Horvat

(2019). Variability of practice as an interface between motor and cognitive development. International Journal of Sport Exercise & Psychology, 17, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1223421

35.

Pollatou

Kioumourtzoglou

Agelousis

Mavromatis

(1997). Contextual interference effects in learning novel motor skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84(2), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1997.84.2.487

36.

Porter

J. M.

Magill

R. A.

(2010). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.502946

37.

Prado

M. T. A.

Fernani

D. C. G. L.

da Silva

T. D.

Smorenburg

A. R.

de Abreu

L. C.

de Mello Monteiro

C. B.

(2017). Motor learning paradigm and contextual interference in manual computer tasks in individuals with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 64, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.03.006

38.

Rendell

M. A.

Masters

Farrow

Morris

(2011). An implicit basis for the retention benefits of random Practice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2010.530304

39.

Roemmich

R. T.

Bastian

A. J.

(2015). Two ways to save a newly learned motor pattern. Journal of Neurophysiology, 113(10), 3519–3530. https://doi.org/0.1152/jn.00965.2014

40.

Rojhani

Stiens

S. A.

Recio

A. C.

(2017). Independent sailing with high tetraplegia using sip and puff controls: Integration into a community sailing center. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 40(4), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2016.1198548

41.

Royal Yachting Association. (2020). https://www.rya.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx

42.

Sail Canada. (2020). https://www.sailing.ca/

43.

Sanz

García-Vera

M. P.

(2015). Técnicas para el análisis de diseños de caso único en la práctica clínica: ejemplos de aplicación en el tratamiento de víctimas de atentados terroristas [Techniques for the analysis of single-case designs in clinical practice: Examples of application in the treatment of victims of terrorist attacks]. Clínica y Salud, 26(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clysa.2015.09.004

44.

Schöllhorn

W. I.

(2016). Invited commentary: Differential learning is different from contextual interference learning. Human Movement Science, 47, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.018

45.

Schöner

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1988a). A synergetic theory of environmentally-specified and learned patterns of movement coordination. I. Relative phase dynamics. Biological Cybernetics, 58, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00364154

46.

Schöner

Kelso

J. A. S.

(1988b). A synergetic theory of environmentally-specified and learned patterns of movement coordination. II. Component oscillator dynamics. Biological Cybernetics, 58, 81–89.

47.

Shadmehr

Mussa-Ivaldi

F. A.

(1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 3208–3224.

48.

Shea

J. B.

Hunt

J. P.

Zimny

S. T.

(1985). Representational structure and strategic processes for movement production. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 27, 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62530-3

49.

Shea

J. B.

Morgan

R. L.

(1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179

50.

Shea

J. B.

Zimny

S. T.

(1983). Context effects in memory and learning movement information. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 12, 345–366.

51.

Shea

J. B.

Zimny

S. T.

(1988). Knowledge incorporation in motor representation. In Meijer

O. G.

Roth

(Eds.), Complex movement behavior: The motor-action controversy (pp. 289–314). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62562-5

52.

Smith

M. A.

Ghazizadeh

Shadmehr

(2006). Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLOS Biology, 4(6), e179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040179

53.

Travlos

A. K.

(2010). Specificity and variability of practice, and contextual interference in acquisition and transfer of an underhand volleyball serve. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(1), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.110.1.298-312

54.

U.S. Sailing. (2020). https://www.ussailing.org/

55.

Wright

Verwey

Buchanen

Chen

Rhee

Immink

(2016). Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0887-3

56.

H. G.

Miyamoto

Y. R.

Castro

L. N. G.

Ölveczky

B. P.

Smith

M. A.

(2014). Temporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability. Nature Neuroscience, 17(2), 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3616

57.

Zetou

Michalopoulou

Giazitzi

Kioumourtzoglou

(2007). Contextual interference effects in learning volleyball skills. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 104, 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.3.995-1004