Abstract
Traditional models of skill learning posit that skilled action unfolds in an automatic manner and that control will prove deleterious to movement and performance proficiency. These perspectives assume that automated processes are characterised by low levels of control and vice versa. By contrast, a number of authors have recently put forward hybrid theories of skilled action which have sought to capture the close integration between fine-grained automatic motor routines and intentional states. Drawing heavily on the work of Bebko et al. (2005) and Christensen et al. (2016), we argue that controlled and automated processes must operate in parallel if skilled performers are to address the wide range of challenges that they are faced with in training and competition. More specifically, we show how skilled performers use controlled processes to update and improve motor execution in training contexts and to stabilise performance under pressurised conditions.
Highlights
Skilled action in sport is widely believed to be facilitated by an absence of conscious attention to the mechanics of one’s movements during skill execution
Low automaticity is associated with high levels of control and vice versa. Another feature common to dual process views is the belief that automaticity is a defining feature of optimal performance while control is associated with the degradation of motor execution (Masters and Maxwell, 2008)
We show how certain performance states are characterised by these processes emerging together whilst others are characterised by high levels of automaticity and low levels of control, and vice versa
Summary
Skilled action in sport is widely believed to be facilitated by an absence of conscious attention to the mechanics of one’s movements during skill execution (see Masters and Maxwell, 2008, for a review). A considerable body of experimental evidence highlights the debilitating effect of ‘conscious processing’ (or paying attention to one’s action during motor skill execution) on skilled athletes’ movement and performance (e.g., Beilock and Carr, 2001) These findings support the predictions made by a number of highly influential models of skill acquisition which place controlled and automated processing at opposite ends of a single continuum (e.g., Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977). Another feature common to dual process views is the belief that automaticity is a defining feature of optimal performance while control is associated with the degradation of motor execution (Masters and Maxwell, 2008) Advocates of this perspective often present the phenomenon of “expert induced amnesia” (when asked to recall how they have performed a task experts provide impoverished accounts containing little recollection of the episodic ‘rules’ that guided their action; see Beilock et al 2002) as prima facie evidence that skilled actions are governed by automatic processes. “control processes refer to processes that enable adaptation within cognitive schema or motor programs, rendering the programs flexible so that one can respond to changing external or internal demands while still executing the same behaviour” (Bebko et al 2005, p. 474)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
