The role of movement reinvestment in skill automaticity based on the interference-error model
Assistant Professor, Department of Sport Science, School of Humanities, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of combining the errorless learning model (errorless or errorfull practice) with random or block schedules on automaticity of dart throwing skill in two categories of high and low movement reinvestment. One hundred participants with no experience in dart throwing were selected and divided into two categories of high and low movement reinvestment using the movement specific reinvestment scale (Masters et al 2005). Subjects of each category were randomly divided into five groups: block-errorless, block-errorfull, random-errorless, random-errorfull and random. After the pre-test and the acquisition phase (three sessions of 70 trials), experimental groups participated in the retention test (with and without cognitive secondary task). Factor analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Although, the results showed that in the acquisition test, the performance of subjects in the block-errorless, block-errorfull and random-errorless was similar and better than the random and random-errorfull groups, in the retention test as well as the automaticity test, the random-errorless group was better than the other groups. In both retention and automaticity tests, the random-errorless group showed the best performance and the random-errorfull group showed the worst performance. The results also showed that there was a significant difference between two categories of high and low movement reinvestment in retention test in favor of low movement reinvestment. Although the difference between two categories in the acquisition test was not significant, in both acquisition and retention test, the block groups (block-errorless and block-errorfull) performed better in the high movement reinvestment category. In contrast, the performance of random groups (random-errorless, random-errorfull and random) was better in low movement reinforcement category. Results were different at the automaticity phase and in all groups was in favor of the low movement reinvestment category. The results of this study show that there is a specified range for cognitive processing that is beneficial for learning (in block schedule is insufficient, in random and random-errorfull schedule is too much and in random-errorless is optimal). The results of this study support the "implicit learning" hypothesis of Randell et all (2011).