Effects of Cognitive Processes and Task Complexity on Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer of Motor Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was designed to investigate the effect of cognitive problem-solving operations (termed contextual interference) and complexity of tasks on the acquisition retention and transfer of motor skills. Ninety-six children, ages 7.5-9.5 practiced the task of throwing beanbags under either low contextual interference (blocked practice), high contextual interference (random practice) or medium contextual interference (combined practice). Half of the participants acquired a complex task and the other half a simple task. All participants performed 30 acquisition trials, 9 retention trials and 4 transfer trials. Results indicated that participants who practiced in the blocked practice group did not differ in their performance whether they acquired complex or simple tasks. On the other hand, participants from the random and combined practice groups who acquired simple tasks performed better than those who acquired complex tasks. These findings support the hypothesis that there is a limit to the interference during practice that will benefit retention and transfer, thus creating the contextual interference effect. It seems that the complex-task condition combined with random or combined practice schedule increased the difficulty of acquisition, possibly impeding the cognitive processing during acquisition, thus impairing the learning process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".