PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Curt E Magnuson

Publications and source records attributed to Curt E Magnuson.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Learning to detect error in movement timing using physical and observational practice.

Three experiments assessed the possibility that a physical practice participant's ability to render appropriate movement timing estimates may be hindered compared to those who merely observed. Results from these experiments revealed that observers and physical practice participants executed and estimated the overall durations of movement sequences similarly and more accurately than those who were not privy to any previous practice. This was true for a case in which (a) the execution demands for the physical practice participant were relatively high when multiple movement sequences were practiced with a consistent relative time structure but different overall durations (Experiment 1) and (b) the execution demands were relatively modest when only a single sequential motor task was learned (Experiment 2). Moreover, this general set of findings remained true for individuals who had previous experience with physical or observational practice, even when timing estimations were made during tests with no execution demands (Experiment 3). Thus, executing a movement sequence does not appear to interfere with the development of a learner's subjective evaluation of overall timing performance. Specifically, these data provided evidence that recognizing error in movement timing can be accomplished via observation, and, more generally, they add to the growing evidence supporting the claim that observational practice is a legitimate method facilitating the acquisition of sequential movement behaviors.

Humans↗

Programming and reprogramming sequence timing following high and low contextual interference practice.

Individuals practiced two unique discrete sequence production tasks that differed in their relative time profile in either a blocked or random practice schedule. Each participant was subsequently administered a "precuing" protocol to examine the cost of initially compiling or modifying the plan for an upcoming movement's relative timing. The findings indicated that, in general, random practice facilitated the programming of the required movement timing, and this was accomplished while exhibiting greater accuracy in movement production. Participants exposed to random practice exhibited the greatest motor programming benefit, when a modification to an already prepared movement timing profile was required. When movement timing was only partially constructed prior to the imperative signal, the individuals who were trained in blocked and random practice formats accrued a similar cost to complete the programming process. These data provide additional support for the recent claim of Immink & Wright (2001) that at least some of the benefit from experience in a random as opposed to blocked training context can be localized to superior development and implementation of the motor programming process before executing the movement.

Humans↗

Effects of repeated retention tests on learning a single timing task.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the possibility that administering an initial retention test would influence any subsequent retention tests administered to the same participants. Participants performed 40 practice trials of a four-segment key-pressing task with a movement time goal of 925 ms. Participants were then administered either two retention tests (Day 1-Day 1 group, 10 min and 20 min after practice; Day 1-Day 2 group, 10 min and 24 hr after practice; Day 2-Day 2 group, 23 hr 50 min and 24 hr after practice) or one retention test (Day 1-Control group, 20 min after practice; Day 2-Control group, 24 hr after practice). The first test had a deleterious effect on performing the second test for the Day 2-Day 2 group, which would be expected if the task representation was updated and re-encoded at the time of recall using diminished information. This finding suggests that researchers should be cautious about using repeated retention tests that are administered 1 day after practice. In addition, teachers and coaches should consider administering a test under gamelike conditions following practice of a new technique. Otherwise, performance of the new technique may be degraded or perturbed at the time of later performances.

Humans↗

Changes in the incidental context impacts search but not loading of the motor buffer.

During a retention test, a change in the nature of the incidental contextual information present during training can have a deleterious impact on response selection by not activating particular subsets of information in memory that help direct the retrieval process. The present experiment addressed whether a change in the incidental context also impacted the completion of processes associated with loading and searching the motor buffer during motor programming. A self-select paradigm was used to describe the planning and execution of one- and four-element sequences that consisted of short and long duration key-presses. During a test phase following training, changes in the incidental contextual information impeded the search of the motor buffer. However, loading specific timing information into the motor buffer was unaffected by shifts in contexts. These data support the contention that contextual information plays a fundamental role in a broad array of movement-planning operations that involve search and retrieval type activity.

Auditory Perception↗