The Comparison of two methods of variability on the learning of golf putting: Contextual Interference and Differential leaning

Mousavi, Seyede Houriye; Saberi Kakhki, Alireza; Fazeli, David

doi:10.22089/mbj.2021.9735.1932

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ M.A in Motor Learning and Control, Department of Motor Behavior, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Associate Professor of Motor Behavior, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

³ Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Department of sport sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shiraz University

https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2021.9735.1932

Abstract

This study was aimed to compare the effect of two methods of variability (contextual interference and differential learning) on the learning in golf putting. For this purpose, 50 female students (mean age 21.6 ± 1.7) were randomly divided into five groups, including blocked contextual interference (BCI), random contextual interference (RCI), blocked differential learning (BDR), random differential learning (RDR), and control. After a pre-test, participants practiced the putting task for three consecutive days (10 blocks per day, 12 trails each) according to their grouping. Ten minutes and 72 hours after the last practice session, the immediate and delayed retention tests were performed, respectively. Also, the participants completed a transfer test. Results for the retention tests did not show a significant difference between differential learning groups and the random contextual interference group (p > 0.05), while during the transfer phase, differential learning groups showed higher accuracy (p < 0.05). Therefore, the continuous changes in differential learning Probably for reasons like the emergence of the subject and context-dependent attractors also the phenomenon of Stochastic perturbations seems to be more generalizable than the pattern created by contextual interference.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2538273.1400.13.44.4.9

References

Shea CH, Wulf G. Schema theory: a critical appraisal and reevaluation. J Mot Behav.. 2005;37(2):85-102.

Ranganathan R, Newell KM. Changing up the routine: intervention-induced variability in motor learning. Exerc Sport Sci Rev.. 2013;41(1):64-70.

Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev. 1975;82(4):225-60.

Shea JB, Morgan RL. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn and Mem. 1979;5(2):179-187.

Lee TD, Magill RA. The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1983;9(4):730-746.

Russell DM, Newell KM. How persistent and general is the contextual interference effect? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007;78(4):318-27.

Simon DA. Contextual interference effects with two tasks. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;105(1):177-83.

Porter JM. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning novel motor skills. [PhD dissertation]. [Warrensburg]: University of Central Missouri; 2008.

Fazeli D, Taheri H, Saberi Kakhki A. Random versus blocked practice to enhance mental representation in golf putting. Percept Mot Skills. 2017;124(3):674-88.

Beckmann H, Winkel C, Schöllhorn WI. Optimal range of variation in hockey technique training. Int J Sport Psychol. 2010 Oct 1;41(4):5-45.

Beckmann H, Schöllhorn WI. Differenzielles lernen im kugelstoßen. Leistungssport. 2006;36(4):44-50.

Schollhorn WI, Beckmann H, Michelbrink M, Sechelmann M, Trockel M, Davids K. Does noise provide a basis for the unification of motor learning theories? Int J Sport Psychol. 2006;37(2/3):186-206.

Schöllhorn WI. Invited commentary: differential learning is different from contextual interference learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2016;47:240-5.

Savelsbergh GJ, Kamper WJ, Rabius J, De Koning JJ, Schöllhorn W. A new method to learn to start in speed skating: A differencial learning approach. Int J Sport Psychol. 2010;41(4):pp.415-427.

Schöner G, Kelso JS. A dynamic pattern theory of behavioral change. J Theor Biol. 1988;135(4):501-24.

Hegen P, Schöllhorn W. Lernen an Unterschieden und nicht durch Wiederholung. Fussballtraining. 2012;3:41-52.

Schöllhorn WI, Sechelmann M, Trockel M, Westers R. Nie das Richtige trainieren, um richtig zu spielen. Leistungssport. 2004;5(2004):13-7.

Wagner H, Müller E. The effects of differential and variable training on the quality parameters of a handball throw. Sports Biomech.. 2008;7(1):54-71.

Lattwein M, Henz D, Schöllhorn WI. Differential training as an intervention strategy to prevent choking under pressure in basketball freethrow. 19th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, ; 2014; Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Schönherr T, Schöllhorn WI. Differential learning in basketball. In: European workshop on movement science, Mechanics, and Physiology, Müster (Alemania); 2003. pp. 22-4.

Römer J, Schöllhorn WI, Jaitner T, Preiss R. Differentiated learning in Volleyball: an instructional sequence for improving the first contact. Sportunterricht. 2009;58(2):41-5.

Humpert V, Schöllhorn WI. Vergleich von techniktrainingsansätzen zum tennisaufschlag. Trainingswissenschaft im Freizeitsport. 2006;7(9):121-4.

Taheri H, Fazeli D, Poureghbali S. The effect of variability of practice at execution redundancy level in skilled and novice basketball players. Percept Mot Skills. 2017;124(2):491-501.

Hossner EJ, Käch B, Enz J. On the optimal degree of fluctuations in practice for motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2016;47:231-9.

AL Edwards C, J Hodges N. Acquiring a novel coordination movement with non-task goal related variability. Open Sports Sci J. 2012;5(1):59-67.

Henz D, John A, Merz C, Schöllhorn WI. Post-task effects on EEG brain activity differ for various differential learning and contextual interference protocols. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:19-26.

Serrien B, Tassignon B, Verschueren J, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP. Short-term effects of differential learning and contextual interference in a goalkeeper-like task: visuomotor response time and motor control. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020;20(8):1061-71.

Williams AM, Hodges NJ, editors. Skill acquisition in sport. Research, Theory and Practice.2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2012; 385 pp, ISBN: 978-0-415-60786-5.

Hülsmann F, Frank C, Senna I, Ernst MO, Schack T, Botsch M. Superimposed skilled performance in a virtual mirror improves motor performance and cognitive representation of a full body motor action. Front Robot AI. 2019;6:43-97.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers ;1988 .

Frank TD, Michelbrink M, Beckmann H, Schöllhorn WI. A quantitative dynamical systems approach to differential learning: self-organization principle and order parameter equations. Biol Cybern.;98(1):19-31.

McDonnell MD, Abbott D. What is stochastic resonance? Definitions, misconceptions, debates, and its relevance to biology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(5):e1000348.

Moss F, Ward LM, Sannita WG. Stochastic resonance and sensory information processing: a tutorial and review of application. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115(2):267-81.

Schöllhorn WI, Mayer-Kress G, Newell KM, Michelbrink M. Time scales of adaptive behavior and motor learning in the presence of stochastic perturbations. Hum Mov Sci. 2009;28(3):319-33.

Gray R. Comparing the constraints led approach, differential learning and prescriptive instruction for training opposite-field hitting in baseball. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2020; 51:101797

The Comparison of two methods of variability on the learning of golf putting: Contextual Interference and Differential leaning

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 44September 2021Pages 69-92

Volume 13, Issue 44
September 2021
Pages 69-92