Document Type : Research Paper
1 Assistant professor of Motor Behavior- Faculty of Education and Psychology - Department of Sport Sciences- Shiraz University
2 Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Department of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Shiraz University
3 assistant professor at sport sciences department, faculty of psychology and educational, Shiraz University
This study was aimed to compare the effect of practice with high, low, and increasing interference on accuracy and mental representation of basketball free throw. For this purpose, 30 novice participants were randomly divided into random, blocked, and increasing groups. The participants practiced the basketball free throw from different distances (3/96, 4/57, and 5.18 meter) for three consecutive days-three blocks each day and each block included 30 trials- according to the given grouping and practice order. Three days after the last training session retention and transfer tests were performed. Results showed that the increasing group had higher accuracy than the other two groups. The results during the transfer test were similar to the retention test. The results for the mental representation measure showed that the increasing group had a more structured mental representation that two other groups and this mental representation were more similar to the mental representation of the skilled participants. These results were interpreted according to the efficient processing of the information and also according to the challenge point framework
- Contextual interference
- increasing interference
- mental representation
- basketball free throw
2. Aloupis, C., Guadagnoli, M., & Kohl, R. (1995). Manipulation of task switches during acquisition: A test of traditional contextual interference hypotheses. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 29(4), 171-180.
3. Barreiros, J., Figueiredo, T., & Godinho, M. (2007). The contextual interference effect in applied settings. European Physical Education Review, 13(2), 195-208.
4. Brady, F. (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest, 50(3), 266-293.
5. Brady, F. (2004). Contextual interference: a meta-analytic study. Perceptual and motor skills, 99(1), 116-126.
6. Cheong, J. P., Lay, B., & Razman, R. (2016). Investigating the contextual interference effect using combination sports skills in open and closed skill environments. Journal of sports science & medicine, 15(1), 167.
7. Cheong, J. P. G., Lay, B., Grove, J. R., Medic, N., & Razman, R. (2012). Practicing field hockey skills along the contextual interference continuum: A comparison of five practice schedules. Journal of sports science & medicine, 11(2), 304.
8. England, A., Brusseau, T., Burns, R., Koester, D., Newton, M., Thiese, M., & Chase, B. (2019). The Cognitive Structure of the Basketball Free Throw in Adolescent Physical Education Students. Motor control, 23(4), 472-484.
9. Fazeli, D., Taheri, H., & Saberi Kakhki, A. (2017). Random versus blocked practice to enhance mental representation in golf putting. Perceptual and motor skills, 124(3), 674-688.
10. Frank, C., Land, W. M., & Schack, T. (2013). Mental representation and learning: the influence of practice on the development of mental representation structure in complex action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(3), 353-361.
11. Gentile, A. M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest, 17(1), 3-23.
12. Guadagnoli, M., Holcomb, W., & Weber, T. (1999). The relationship between contextual interference effects and performer expertise on the learning of a putting task. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 37(1), 19-36.
13. Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 36(2), 212-224.
14. Hülsmann, F., Frank, C., Senna, I., Ernst, M. O., Schack, T., & Botsch, M. (2019). Superimposed Skilled Performance in a Virtual Mirror Improves Motor Performance and Cognitive Representation of a Full Body Motor Action. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 43.
15. Kim, T., Frank, C., & Schack, T. (2017). A systematic investigation of the effect of action observation training and motor imagery training on the development of mental representation structure and skill performance. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 499.
16. Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 68(4), 357-361.
17. Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(4), 730.
18. Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? Advances in psychology, 27, 3-22.
19. Lin, C.-H., Fisher, B. E., Winstein, C. J., Wu, A. D., & Gordon, J. (2008). Contextual interference effect: Elaborative processing or forgetting—Reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation—Induced effects on motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 40(6), 578-586.
20. Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human movement science, 9(3-5), 241-289.
21. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Anderson. JR (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
22. Porter, J. M., & Beckerman, T. (2016). Practicing with gradual increases in contextual interference enhances visuomotor learning. Kinesiology: International journal of fundamental and applied kinesiology, 48(2), 244-250.
23. Porter, J. M., & Magill, R. A. (2010). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of sports sciences, 28(12), 1277-1285.
24. Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Ghotbi Varzaneh, A., Zarghami, M., & Shafinia, P. (2012). Practicing along the contextual interference continuum: A comparison of three practice schedules in an elementary physical education setting. Kinesiology, 44(2), 191-198.
25. Santos, J. M., & Embrechts, M. (2009). On the use of the adjusted rand index as a metric for evaluating supervised classification. In International conference on artificial neural networks (pp. 175-184). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
26. Schack, T. (2004). The cognitive architecture of complex movement. International journal of sport and exercise psychology, 2(4), 403-438.
27. Schack, T. (2012). Measuring mental representations. Measurement in sport and exercise psychology, 8, 203-214.
28. Schack, T., & Mechsner, F. (2006). Representation of motor skills in human long-term memory. Neuroscience letters, 391(3), 77-81.
29. Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Learning and memory, 5(2), 179.
30. Velentzas, K., Heinen, T., Tenenbaum, G., & Schack, T. (2010). Functional mental representation of volleyball routines in German youth female national players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(4), 474-485.
31. Weigelt, M., Ahlmeyer, T., Lex, H., & Schack, T. (2011). The cognitive representation of a throwing technique in judo experts–technological ways for individual skill diagnostics in high-performance sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 231-235.