Task Characteristics and the Contextual Interference Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the influence of blocked and random practice on the acquisition and retention of a criterion multisegment motor task practiced alongside either two similar-distractors tasks or two different-distractors tasks. The random-practice similar-distractors group made more decision-making errors and performed the criterion task more slowly than the blocked-practice similar-distractors group during the acquisition phase. Following a brief filled retention interval, the blocked-practice similar-distractors group demonstrated a loss of acquired performance capabilities, whereas the random-practice similar-distractors group did not. The blocked- and random-practice different-distractors groups performed similarly throughout the experiment. Results are interpreted within Glenberg's component-levels theory, in which it was argued that random practice must stimulate the differential storage of multilevel contextual components associated with the multiple motor tasks being learned to produce a contextual interference effect. The theoretical and practical implications of differential storage versus nonrepetition as a function of random practice are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".