456 – The Myth of Contextual Interference & the Variability of Practice Effect?
Aug 1, 2023
auto_awesome
Exploring the myth of contextual interference and the variability of practice in motor learning. Discussing the benefits of random practice, the impact of contextual interference on skill acquisition, and a critique of a study on sports and motor skills. Examining the effect of age on contextual interference and understanding the differences between blocked and random practice in sports.
Random practice and blocked practice show no significant difference in skill acquisition, retention, and transfer of skills.
The belief that high variability is not suitable for younger or novice athletes is not supported by evidence.
Deep dives
Random practice versus blocked practice
The podcast episode explores the debate between random practice and blocked practice in motor learning. Random practice involves switching between different skills randomly, while blocked practice focuses on practicing a single skill in blocks. The traditional belief is that random practice leads to better skill acquisition in the long run, while blocked practice allows for easier learning in the short term. However, the episode reviews a paper by Wolfgang Schollhorn and colleagues that challenges this belief. The study finds weak evidence in support of the contextual interference hypothesis, which suggests that random practice is better. In fact, the results show that there is no significant difference between random practice and blocked practice in terms of acquisition, retention, and transfer of skills.
Contextual interference and information processing
Another key idea discussed in the episode is contextual interference, which is based on information processing and cognitive psychology. The interference occurs when learners switch between different motor programs for different skills, leading to potential confusion and slower skill acquisition. The elaboration hypothesis suggests that random practice allows for better comparison and contrast between motor programs, resulting in more distinct and elaborate skill acquisition. The action reconstruction hypothesis proposes that the process of reconstructing motor programs in random practice leads to better long-term learning. These explanations have been widely accepted in the motor learning literature, but the episode highlights that the evidence for their effectiveness is weak, especially when it comes to sports-related studies.
Variability of practice and debunking myths
The podcast episode also challenges some common beliefs about practice variability. It is often believed that high variability is not suitable for younger or novice athletes due to cognitive overload, and that they should focus on blocked practice and repetitions. However, the study reviewed in the episode found no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is no significant advantage of blocked practice for new learners or younger athletes. The episode suggests that instead of focusing on extremes of no variability or high variability, there should be a more nuanced approach that considers individual factors such as frustration tolerance and failure management. The key takeaway is that variability of practice is important, but the optimal level of variability may vary depending on the individual and the specific skill being trained.
Is random practice really better than blocked? Does it apply to sports skills? Is the contextual inference explanation of variability of practice supported by the evidence?
