1

Contextual interference

…and the bench press

2

Simple vs. Complex skills

• This paper proposes a relationship for tasks that do or do not benefit from CI (see pages 187-189)

3

Simple vs. Complex skills

• “Complex” tasks supporting CI effects: Kayak roll, badminton serve

• “Complex” tasks with equivocal findings: Bimanual coordination, badminton serve, volleyball skills

• “Complex” tasks not supporting CI effects: Tennis serve, several studies using children,

• Variations in complexity Albaret & Thon (1999) – simple task showed CI effect, difficult

task did not (# line drawing segments) Shea et al – when processing RT and absolute time, CI effect

disappears. Reappears when processing only absolute time.

4

Simple vs. Complex skills

• Complexity from elaboration standpoint (p. 189):

So, with complex tasks the multiple elements of the task ensure elaboration – high levels of intratask processing rather than intertask processing

5

Simple vs. Complex skills

• Taken together: If the task is simple, increasing complexity of practice

schedule can have positive effects If the task is complex, increasing complexity of practice

schedule can have neutral or even negative effects

• So, what is complexity? # components? # degrees of freedom? Phase relationship between moving parts? This is a problem!

6

So to the bench press…

• Quick note on the CI paradigm Tasks are either practiced separately (blocked) or

interspersed (random) It’s this which manipulates processing type and

reconstruction need

7

Naimo et al.

• Practiced bench press and dart throwing 4 sets bench press, 4 sets dart throwing.

LCI: all sets of each task completed in one block HCI: one set of bench press, one set of dart throwing…repeat 4 x

DV for bench press 1RM Checklist (score /13)

• Coordination?• Complexity?

DV for dart throw CE, VE (1D measures??)

8

Naimo et al.

• Findings…

No differences in checklist scores between HCI and LCI anywhere

HCI improved from post to retention, LCI did not…CI effect?

NB – no effects at all for dart throwing…CI effect?

9

Onto attentional focus…

• Previous thoughts on automaticity… “Errorless” learning

10

Onto attentional focus…

• Previous thoughts on automaticity… “Errorless” learning

11

Onto attentional focus…

• Previous thoughts on automaticity… AF in bicep curl (Marchant, JSCR, 2009)

12

Kal et al. (2013)

• Within subject design (30 s) Foot movement, letter fluency Single task, dual task Internal, external Differences in movement duration, Dual task cost, EMG…

Movement more fluid, less prone to cost due to secondary task, when attention externally focused

Entirely consistent with previous findings

13

Final – posted on web site