Self-controlled amount and pacing of practice facilitate learning of a sequential timing task

ABSTRACT

Allowing learners to control the number of practice trials has been shown to facilitate motor learning (Lessa & Chiviacowsky, 2015; Post et al., 2011; 2014). However, it is uncertain the extent to which prior findings were influenced by the combined effects of allowing participants to control both the pacing- and amount-of-practice. The present study examined the independent effects of self-controlled amount- and pacing-of-practice on learning a sequential timing task. Participants were assigned to a self-controlled-amount-of-practice (SCA), self-controlled-pacing-of-practice (SCP), yoked-amount-of-practice (YKA), or a yoked-pacing-of-practice (YKP) group. Participants completed acquisition, immediate retention/transfer and delayed retention/transfer. During acquisition, SCA controlled the number of acquisition blocks completed with a fixed inter-trial interval while SCP controlled the inter-trial interval with a fixed number of blocks. Yoked groups were matched to a self-control counterpart so the amount (YKA) and pacing (YKP) were equivalent. Self-control groups demonstrated lower absolute constant error during immediate-retention and lower absolute constant error and variable error during delayed retention (p < .05). For intrinsic motivation, SCA scored significantly higher than SCP for the subscale Interest/Enjoyment (p < .05). Findings indicated that self-control, regardless of type, facilitated motor learning. Further work is needed to continue to examine the relationship between controlling the amount and pacing of practice on skill acquisition.

KEYWORDS:

• Self-controlled amount of practice
• self-controlled pacing
• motor learning
• self-regulation
• sequential timing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ To determine if the amount of practice was related to accuracy during acquisition, we conducted four separate bivariate correlations between the total number of blocks and accuracy during the first acquisition, last acquisition block, immediate and delayed retention. Neither showed a significant relationship (p= .80 for the first block; p= .065 for last acquisition block; p = .10 for immediate retention; p = .23 for delayed retention).

² To determine if the pacing was related to accuracy during acquisition, we conducted four separate bivariate correlations between the participants average intertrial pacing and accuracy during the first acquisition, last acquisition block, immediate and delayed retention. Neither showed a significant relationship (p = .72 for the first block; p = .13 for last acquisition block; p = .43 for immediate retention; p = .98 for delayed retention).

³ This information was revealed in a brief exit interview. The remainder of the results from that interview did not provide additional insight into the results of the study and so were not reported.