Document Type : Research Paper


Assistant Professor, of motor Behavior, Department of Sport Science, School of Humanities, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran


The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of combining random or block schedules with a errorless learning model (errorless or errorfull practice) on learning and automaticity of dart throwing skill in both high and low working memory conditions. One hundred participants with no experience in dart throwing were selected and divided into two classes of high and low working memory using the N back working memory test. Subjects of each class were randomly divided into five groups: block-errorless, block-errorfull, random-errorless, random-errorfull and random. After the pre-test and the acquisition phase (three sessions of 70 trials), experimental groups participated in the retention test (with and without cognitive secondary task). The results showed that in both high and low working memory conditions, the random-errorless group performed the best performance and the random-errorfull group performed the worst, although the performance of the block groups were better in the low working memory condition. This result indicates that in high working memory conditions, cognitive processing in block-errorless in not sufficient to generate cognitive effort and therefore is not sufficient to make appropriate challenge to practice. The results also showed that the three groups including random-errorless, random-errorfull and random, performed better in high working memory condition than low working memory condition at the same time with secondary cognitive task. The results of this study show that working memory will play a very important role in learning motor skills and especially in achieving high levels of task automation.


Main Subjects

  1. Young DE, Cohen MJ, Husak WS. Contextual interference and motor skill acquisition: on the processes that influence retention. Hum Movement Sci. 1993;12:577-600.
  2. Li Y, Wright DL. An assessment of the attention demands during random- and blocked-practice schedules. Q J Exp Psychol. 2000;53A(2):591-606.
  3. Cross ES, Schmitt PS, Grafton ST. Neural substrates of contextual interference during motor learning support a model of active preparation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19(11):1854-71.
  4. Maxwell JP, Masters RSW, Eves FF. From novice to no knowhow: a longitudinal study of implicit motor learning. J Sport Sci. 2000;18:111-20.
  5. Masters RSW, Maxwell JP. Implicit motor learning, reinvestment and movement disruption: What you don’t know won’t hurt you. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ. editors. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice. London: Routledge; 2004. pp. 207-228.
  6. Shea JB, Zimny ST. Context effects in memory and learning movement information. In: Magill RA. editor. Memory and control of action. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1983; pp. 345-66.
  7. Lee TD, Magill RA. Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In: Goodman D, Wilberg RB, Franks IM. editors. Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1985; pp. 3-22.
  8. Masters RSW, Poolton JM. Advances in implicit motor learning. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ. editors. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 2012; pp. 59-77.
  9. Rendell MA, Masters RSW, Farrow D, Morris T. An implicit basis for the retention benefits of random practice. J Mot Behav. 2011;43:1-13.
  10. Broadbent DP, Causer J, Willaiams AM, Ford PR. The role of error processing in the contextual interference effect during the training of perceptual-cognitive skills. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017;43:1329-42.
  11. Capio C, Poolton J, Sit C, Holmstrom M, Masters RSW. Reducing errors benefits the Field-based learning of a fundamental movement skill in children. Scand J Med Sci Spor. 2013;23:181-8.
  12. Maxwell JP, Masters R, Kerr E, Weedon E. The implicit benefit of learning without errors.Q J Exp Psychol. 2001;54A:1049-68.
  13. Poolton JM, Masters RSW, Maxwell JP. The relationship between initial errorless learning conditions and subsequent performance. Hum Movement Sci. 2005;24:362-78.
  14. Hambrick DZ, Engle RW. Effect of domain knowledge working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: an investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis.Cogn Psychol. 2002;44(4):339-87.
  15. Buszard T, Farrow D, Verswijveren SJJM, Reid M, Williams J, Polman R, et al. Working memory capacity limits motor learning when implementing multiple instructions.Front Psychol. 2011;8:1350-1362
  16. Schweighofer N, Lee JY, Goh HT, Choi Y, Kim SS, Stewart JC, et al. Mechanisms ot the contextual interference effect in individuals poststroke. J Neurophysiol. 2011;106(5):2632-41.
  17. Kal EC, Van Der Kamp J, Houdijk H. External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: A comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis. Hum Movement Sci. 2013;32:527-39.
  18. Chauvel G, Maquestiaux F, Hartley AA, Joubert S, Didierjean A, Masters RSW. Age effects shrink when motor learning is predominantly supported by nondeclarative, automatic memory processes: evidence from golf putting.Q J Exp Psychol. 2012;65:25-38.
  19. Lam WK, Maxwell JP, Masters RSW. Probing the allocation of attention in implicit motor learning. J  Sport Sci. 2010;28:1543-54.
  20. Sanli EA, Lee TD. What roles do errors serve in motor skill learning? An examination of two theoretical predictions. J Mot Behav. 2014;46:329-37.
  21. Masters RSW, Poolton JM, Maxwell JP, Raab M. Implicit motor learning and complex decision making in time constrained environments.J Mot Behav. 2008;40:71-9.
  22. Poolton JM, Maxwell JP, Masters RSW, Raab M. Benefits of an external focus of attention: Common coding or conscious processing?J Sport Sci. 2006;24:89-99.
  23. Tse ACY, Wong TWL, Masters RSW. Examining motor learning in older adults using analogy instruction.Psychol Sport Exerc. 2017;28:78-84.
  24. Kal E, Prosee R, Winters M, van der Kamp J. Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(9):e0203591.
  25. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1): 97-113.
  26. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, Rutter C. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med. 1997; 27(1): 191-197.
  27. Magill RA, Hall KG. A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Hum Movement Sci. 1990;9: 241-89.
  28. Brady F. A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest. 1998; 50:266-93.
  29. Wright D, Verwey W, Buchanen J, Chen J, Rhee J, Immink M. Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning.Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(1):1–21.
  30. Goode S, Magill RA. Contextual interference effects in learning three badminton serves.Res Q Exercise Sport. 1986; 57:308–14.
  31. Ollis S, Button C, Fairweather M. The influence of professional expertise and task complexity upon the potency of the contextual interference effect. Acta Psychol. 2005; 118:229-44.
  32. Lee TD, Simon DA. Contextual interference. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ. editors. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory, and practice. London: Routledge; 2004. pp. 29-44.
  33. Farrow D, Buszard T. Exploring the applicability of the contextual interference effect in sport practice. Progress in Brain Research. 2017; 234:69-83.
  34. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effect of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004; 36:212-24.
  35. Lee TD, White MA. Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational motor learning. Human Movement Science. 1990; 9:349-67.
  36. Cheong JPG, Lay B, Razman R. Investigating the contextual interference effect using combination sports skills in open and closed skill environments. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine. 2016; 15:167-75.
  37. Porter JM, Magill RA. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sport Science. 2010; 28:1277-85.
  38. Lam WK, Maxwell JP, Masters RSW. Analogy versus explicit learning of a modified basketball shooting task: performance and kinematic outcomes. J Sport Sci. 2009; 27:179-91.
  39. Hasan Barani F, Abdoli B, Modaberi S. The effect of contextual interference and practice specificity on learning a throwing skill: A study of effortless process.J Mot Learn Dev. 2015;7(1):41-55.
  40. Abdoli B, Farsi A R, Ramezanzade H. Comparison effect of learning implicit and explicit learning with different levels of cognitive load on learning task coincidence anticipation timing.Mot Behav. 2011;3:29-44
  41. Poolton JM, Masters RSW, Maxwell JP. Passing thoughts on the evolutionary stability of implicit motor behaviour: Performance retention under physiological fatigue. Conscious Cogn. 2007;16:456-68.