Random Practice Enhances Retention and Spatial Transfer in Force Field Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contextual-interference effect is a frequently examined phenomenon in motor skill learning but has not been extensively investigated in motor adaptation. Here, we first tested experimentally if the contextual-interference effect is detectable in force field adaptation regarding retention and spatial transfer, and then fitted state-space models to the data to relate the findings to the “forgetting-and-reconstruction hypothesis”. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups with either a random or a blocked practice schedule. They practiced reaching to four targets and were tested 10 min and 24 h afterward for motor retention and spatial transfer on an interpolation and an extrapolation target, and on targets which were shifted 10 cm away. The adaptation progress was participant-specifically fitted with 4-slow-1-fast state-space models accounting for generalization and set breaks. The blocked group adapted faster (p = 0.007) but did not reach a better adaptation at practice end. We found better retention (10 min), interpolation transfer (10 min), and transfer to shifted targets (10 min and 24 h) for the random group (each p < 0.05). However, no differences were found for retention or for the interpolation target after 24 h. Neither group showed transfer to the extrapolation target. The extended state-space model could replicate the behavioral results with some exceptions. The study shows that the contextual-interference effect is partially detectable in practice, short-term retention, and spatial transfer in force field adaptation; and that state-space models provide explanatory descriptions for the contextual-interference effect in force field adaptation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".