Practice schedules: Impact on movement planning and execution

1
Practice schedules Impact on movement planning
and execution

• David L. Wright
• Elouise Beard Smith Human Performance Laboratory
• Texas AM University
• http//digby.tamu.edu

2
Collaborators

• Charles Black SUNY-Brockport
• Sebastian Brueckner Universität des Saarlandes
• Maarten Immink Australian Catholic University
• Yuhua Li University of Memphis
• Curt Magnuson Texas AM University
• Charles Shea Texas AM University

3
Adapted from Lee Magill (1983), JEP LM C, 9,
730-746
4
Explanations

• Elaborative processing (Shea Zimny, 1983 1985)
• focuses on structure and richness of memory
  representations

• Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee Magill,
  19831985)
• Emphasizes the cognitive procedures executed
  during a practice trial

5
Forgetting-reconstruction

• Short-term memory paradigm
• Lee, Weeks, Elliott, 1987 Weeks Lee, 1987
  but see Shea Wright, 1991

• Learning Paradigm
• Lee, Wishart, Cunningham, Carnahan, 1996

• Dual-task paradigm
• Li Wright, 2000

• Self-select paradigm
• Immink Wright, 1998 2001

6
Li Wright (2000) QJEP,53A, 591-606
7
(No Transcript)
8
Self-Select Paradigm
READY
Precue 4L
END Key
GO
Key press 1
STUDY TIME
REACTIONTIME
.....
Immink Wright (1998) QJEP, 51, 735-754
READY
Precue dit-dit-dah-dah
END Key
GO
Key press 1
READY
Precue dit-dit-dah-dah
END Key
GO
Key press 1
STUDY TIME (ST)
REACTIONTIME (RT)
STUDY TIME (ST)
REACTIONTIME (RT)
.....
.....
time
time
INT PROCESS
SEQ PROCESS
INT PROCESS
SEQ PROCESS
9

• Study time is expected to be greater during
  random practice during acquisition

10

• Study time is expected to be greater during
  random practice

EEG
11
Reconstruction What is it?

• Programming as retrieval in sense of
  reconstruction
• RT may depend on the time required to retrieve
  programs from long-term memory (LTM).
  Retrieval time may increase as a function of the
  complexity of the response because of differences
  in the time required to reconstruct a response
  representation from a code in LTM.
• Klapp, 1996, p.14

12
Klapps (1995 1996) two-process model of motor
programming process

• INT process
• focuses on the internal features of an element or
  chunk of movement and the time to resolve this
  component process depends on the complexity of
  the chunk (e.g., duration of response)

• SEQ process
• focuses on sequencing multiple chunks into the
  correct order. This component process is
  determined by the number of chunks

SRT-CRT
13
Klapps (1995 1996) two-process model of motor
programming process

• Important assumptions
• Pre-programming of INT is possible
• Pre-programming of SEQ is not possible
• INT and SEQ can occur in parallel
• INT takes longer to complete than SEQ

14
Self-Select Paradigm
READY
Precue 4L
END Key
GO
Key press 1
STUDY TIME
REACTIONTIME
.....
INT PROCESS
SEQ PROCESS
READY
Precue dit-dit-dah-dah
END Key
GO
Key press 1
READY
Precue dit-dit-dah-dah
END Key
GO
Key press 1
STUDY TIME (ST)
REACTIONTIME (RT)
STUDY TIME (ST)
REACTIONTIME (RT)
.....
.....
time
time
INT PROCESS
SEQ PROCESS
INT PROCESS
SEQ PROCESS
15
General Tasks

• Single-element
• dit (150 ms) dah (450 ms)

INT
SEQ

• Multiple-element
• dit-dah-dah-dit
• dah-dit-dit-dah

16

• ST but not RT is expected to be greater for
  longer duration response

17

• ST is expected to be greater for longer
  duration response in random practice

Immink Wright, JEPHPP, 27, 423-437
18

• RT should not differ between short and long
  duration responses for both practice conditions

19

• Random practice should exhibit superior
  performance during retention but poorer
  performance during acquisition

20

• RT should be greater for the multiple-element
  response in the case of both practice conditions

21

• ST should be greater for the multiple-element
  response but only in the case of random practice

22

• ST is expected to be greater for the longer
  duration response in random practice

23

• RT should not differ between short and long
  duration responses for both practice conditions

24
Klapp (1995, Experiment 1) SRT
CHUNKING
Adapted from Klapp, 1995
25
Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1 Table 3. Inter-response intervals (in msec) on Days 1 and 8 for responses in Experiment 1
  IRI1   IRI2   IRI3
SET   4S 4L   4S 4L   4S 4L
1 M 120 146 168 143 181 142
SD 26.2 20 47.3 67 47.7 49.5
SD/M 0.22 0.14 0.28 0.47 0.26 0.35
8 M 109 135 138 124 153 121
SD 21.3 15.5 30.7 38.9 34.9 28.4
  SD/M 0.20 0.11   0.22 0.31   0.23 0.23
Adapted from Klapp, 1995
26
Explanations

• Elaborative processing (Shea Zimny, 1983 1985)
• focuses on structure and richness of memory
  representations

• Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee Magill,
  19831985)
• Emphasizes the cognitive procedures executed
  during a practice trial

27

• One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference
  should diminished with practice in random
  condition.

Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition Table 1b. Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for random practice condition
Sequence
        Mean Mean Difference
SET 1S 1L 4S 4L one press four press one to four

1 270 280 323 305 275 317 42
2 249 265 293 270 259 282 25
3 249 263 275 266 256 271 15
4 233 259 264 252 246 258 12
R 239 246 262 250 243 256 13

Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah
28

• One- vs. four-element sequence RT difference
  should not be diminished with practice.

Table 1a. Table 1a.
Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Reaction Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition
Sequence
          Mean Mean Difference
SET 1S 1S 1L 4S 4L one press four press one to four

1 293 293 276 298 259 285 279 -6
2 271 271 267 286 247 269 267 -2
3 261 261 270 279 240 266 260 -6
4 254 254 279 278 240 267 259 -8
R 235 235 238 283 258 237 269 32
Sequence Structure
29
Table 2b. Study Time (in ms) during acquisition
and retention for random practice condition
Sequence Sequence
        Mean Mean Difference
SET 1S 1L 4S 4S 4L one press four press one to four

1 709 670 1051 1051 884 690 968 278
2 475 493 666 666 556 484 611 127
3 395 405 628 628 434 401 531 130
4 355 352 379 379 366 354 373 19
R 440 454 498 498 500 447 499 52
Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit, 4L dah-dit-dit-dah
30
Table 2a. Table 2a.
Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition Study Time (in ms) during acquisition and retention for blocked practice condition
Sequence
          Mean Mean Difference
SET 1S 1S 1L 4S 4L one press four press one to four

1 508 508 350 413 343 429 378 -51
2 411 411 337 356 324 374 340 -34
3 396 396 335 343 307 366 325 -41
4 375 375 399 311 324 387 318 -69
R 606 606 595 1386 840 601 1113 512
Note 1S dit, 1L dah, 4S dit-dah-dah-dit,
4L dah-dit-dit-dah
31
  IRI1   IRI2   IRI3
SET   4S 4L   4S 4L   4S 4L

1 M 106 140 151 98 160 126
SD 26.39 25.67 39.34 20.71 34.72 27.34
SD/M 0.25 0.18 0.26 0.21 0.22 0.22

4 M 108 127 123 100 138 121
SD 19.5 18.25 23.94 17.08 26.88 19.98
SD/M 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.17

RET M 115 128 116 103 135 127
SD 20.73 17.79 19.91 18.84 22.44 20.5
  SD/M 0.18 0.14   0.17 0.18   0.17 0.16
32
Table 3a
Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions. Mean and Standard deviations for inter-response intervals during the first and last sets of acquisition and retention for blocked practice conditions.
                   
  IRI1   IRI2   IRI3
SET   4S 4L   4S 4L   4S 4L

1 M 100 134 145 89 153 111
SD 21.19 25.07 35.44 17.38 32.87 21.56
SD/M 0.21 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.19

4 M 100 113 126 86 146 101
SD 15.9 19.36 21.33 14.54 26.17 17.66
SD/M 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17

RET M 135 127 104 107 129 141
SD 28.45 20.18 22.66 19.02 29.95 29.23
  SD/M 0.21 0.16   0.22 0.18   0.23 0.21
33
Summary

• High CI
• Involves greater engagement of motor programming
  during practice resulting in
• equal if not superior execution of sequential
  tasks (cf. low CI) with lower cost (INT
  component).
• consolidation of multiple element sequences which
  presumably contributes to the efficiency of
  producing these sequences

34
Whats next ?

• Why stop at response programming?
• Perceptual processes
• Indirect evidence (Fendrich, Healy, Bourne,
  1991)

• Response selection/translation
• Indirect evidence (Pashler Baylis 1991 a b
  Verway, 1999)
• Direct evidence (Barbariche, Blandin,
  Audiffren, submitted)

35
Whats next?

• Sequential movements and Parkinsons disease (PD)
• INT but not SEQ process should be intact?
  (Marsden, 1982)

• Switching/transitions between elements in PD is
  disrupted

• Utility of particular practice regimes for
  individuals with PD

36
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!
37
(No Transcript)
38
(Adapted from Klapp, 1995)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
Taken from Verway (1999), JEPHPP, 25, 1693-1708