High contextual interference improves retention in motor learning: systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of practice schedule on retention and transfer has been studied since the first publication on contextual interference (CI) in 1966. However, strongly advocated by scientists and practitioners, the CI effect also aroused some doubts. Therefore, our objective was to review the existing lit...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2024-07, Vol.14 (1), p.15974-45, Article 15974
Hauptverfasser: Czyż, Stanisław H., Wójcik, Aleksandra M., Solarská, Petra, Kiper, Paweł
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The effect of practice schedule on retention and transfer has been studied since the first publication on contextual interference (CI) in 1966. However, strongly advocated by scientists and practitioners, the CI effect also aroused some doubts. Therefore, our objective was to review the existing literature on CI and to determine how it affects retention in motor learning. We found 1255 articles in the following databases: Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, supplemented by the Google Scholar search engine. We screened full texts of 294 studies, of which 54 were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analyses, two different models were applied, i.e., a three-level mixed model and random-effects model with averaged effect sizes from single studies. According to both analyses, high CI has a medium beneficial effect on the whole population. These effects were statistically significant. We found that the random practice schedule in laboratory settings effectively improved motor skills retention. On the contrary, in the applied setting, the beneficial effect of random practice on the retention was almost negligible. The random schedule was more beneficial for retention in older adults (large effect size) and in adults (medium effect size). In young participants, the pooled effect size was negligible and statically insignificant.
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-65753-3