Search

Purpose: Golf coaches may recommend "blind" putting drills in which golfers close their eyes to improve their feel. Research on specificity of learning suggests, however, that adding or removing a source of sensory information after practicing under differing circumstances can cause performance decrements. Specificity of learning is also dependent upon specific task requirements. The purpose of this study was to examine whether golf putting, requiring body positioning and aiming an implement, would benefit from blind training. Method: Novice golfers (n = 24) in Vision Training (VT) & No-Vision Training (NVT) groups completed 108 trials of a 10-ft putt. After a 24-hr delay, both groups completed sighted- and blind-putting tests. Results: Acquisition results revealed Group × Block interactions in RE (p = .025) and y-VE (p = .032). Post hoc procedures revealed significant differences between the groups on Block 2 (p = .017), with the NVT group producing longer mean RE. During testing, RE and x-VE results revealed Group × Test interactions (p = .027 & .041), such that performance of the VT group suffered when transferred to blind putting, while performance of the NVT group did not differ when transferred. Conclusion: NVT did not confer any advantage for subsequent performance with vision. Moreover, results were not consistent with the specificity of learning hypothesis and suggest that putting does not rely on complete sensory integration to support subsequent performance. Presumably, task requirements related to body positioning provided adequate sensory cues for successful performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-control over factors involving task-related information (e.g., feedback) can enhance motor learning. It is unknown if these benefits extend to manipulations that do not directly affect such information. The purpose of this study was to determine if self-control over the amount of practice would also facilitate learning. Participants learned to throw a dart using their nonpreferred hand. The self-control (SC) group decided when to stop practice. The yoked group completed the same number of trials as their SC counterparts. Results revealed the SC group was more accurate during transfer and in recalling the number of trials completed. These findings indicate that self-control benefits extend to factors that do not directly alter task-related information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we examined the effects of interference and repeated retention tests by comparing groups that performed (a) one or two tests, or (b) two tests separated by interpolated tasks. The task involved pressing five keys in 925 me. Constant error increased after Block 1 of the second test for the group completing the interpolated tasks. Variable error decreased across retention tests and was smaller for the two-test groups compared to the one-test control. Results differed from previous reports of degraded timing accuracy (Magnuson, Shea, & Fairbrother, 2004), suggesting the present results may have been related to highly accurate performance during the first retention test that reflected successful initial encoding of task information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three experiments examined repeated retention testing effects in a contextual interference (CI) protocol. Retention was assessed at 10 mm and 24 hr following acquisition or at just 24-hr for the one-test conditions. Experiments 1 and 2 used speeded-response key-pressing tasks. Dependent measures were total time and errors. Experiment 3 used sequential-timing tasks. Dependent measures were absolute error and absolute constant error. Results revealed CI effects in each experiment. Repeated retention testing effects were not found in Experiments 1 and 3. Experiment 2 revealed superior performance by the two-test condition compared to the one-test condition. This result was qualified by possible practice effects during the 10-min test. It was concluded that repeated retention testing does not present problems for most studies of CI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two experiments investigated the effects of a single reminder trial on immediate and delayed retention. Experiment 1 determined if beneficial effects of a reminder trial were a function of task order. Immediate retention performance benefited only when the reminder trial was practiced in the first block of trials. Experiment 2 added a 24-hr delayed retention test to examine the long-term benefits of a reminder trial. Retention performance was enhanced over both delay intervals. The long-term effect extended previous research (Shea & Titzer, 1993) that documented effects after 10 min. The use of a single reminder trial established that intertask comparisons between multiple reminder trials were not a precondition for the reminder trial effect as postulated by Shea and Titzer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the possibility that administering an initial retention test would influence any subsequent retention tests administered to the same participants. Participants performed 40 practice trials of a four-segment key-pressing task with a movement time goal of 925 ms. Participants were then administered either two retention tests (Day 1-Day 1 group, 10 min and 20 min after practice; Day 1-Day 2 group, 10 min and 24 hr after practice,' Day 2-Day 2 group, 23 hr 50 min and 24 hr after practice) or one retention test (Day 1 -Control group, 20 min after practice; Day 2-Control group, 24 hr after practice). The first test had a deleterious effect on performing the second test for the Day 2-Day2 group, which would be expected if the task representation was updated and re-encoded at the time of recall using diminished information. This finding suggests that researchers should be cautious about using repeated retention tests that are administered 1 day after practice. In addition, teachers and coaches should consider administering a test under gamelike conditions following practice of a new technique. Otherwise, performance of the new technique may be degraded or perturbed at the time of later performances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]