Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the hypothesis by Magill and Hall (1990) which predicated no contextual interference effect when task variations of the same motor program was practiced. The advantage of a random practice order for retention and transfer tests, as compared to a blocked practice order has been noted in the laboratory situations and sport situations. With reviwing of contextual interference studies, Magill and Hall (1990) hypothesized that the amount of contextual interference can be influenced by kind of the responses subjects are asked to organize. Many studies using different motor programs(DMP) in the responses and consistently found the contextual interference but other studies that required the same motor program(SMP) for the responses, was supported the contextual interference effect. The present study was conducted in an attempt to empirically test the factor of motor programs and contextual interference. The present study was undertaken to test whether different motor programs create a higher level of contextual interference in a more complex learning environment and produce retention and transfer performance for both the blocked and random conditions as compared using same motor programs. Recently, Giuffrida, Shea, and Fairbrother (2002) investigated the effects of practice schedule and development of the generalized motor program, and reported that a serial compared to a blocked practice schedule was superior when the performance of a task governed by a different motor program was required. Therefore, in the present study, the task variations different motor programs were clearly determine by movement of pushing the ball and stepping on the mat. Forty-eight right handed female college students were selected and the tasks were either used their right hand to push a ball or used their right foot to step on a mat situated under the table using a Bassin Coincidence Anticipation Timer. These procedures designed in a 2 (Acquisition context) X 2 (Motor program) X 3 (Trail block) DM MANOVA desi후 with repeated measures on the last factor. Dependant variables were constant error, absolute error, variable error, and absolute

Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call