Effectiveness of motor sequential learning according to practice schedules in healthy adults; distributed practice versus massed practice

[Purpose] The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of motor sequential learning according to two different types of practice schedules, distributed practice schedule (two 12-hour inter-trial intervals) and massed practice schedule (two 10-minute inter-trial intervals) using a serial reaction time (SRT) task. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty healthy subjects were recruited and then randomly and evenly assigned to either the distributed practice group or the massed practice group. All subjects performed three consecutive sessions of the SRT task following one of the two different types of practice schedules. Distributed practice was scheduled for two 12-hour inter-session intervals including sleeping time, whereas massed practice was administered for two 10-minute inter-session intervals. Response time (RT) and response accuracy (RA) were measured in at pre-test, mid-test, and post-test. [Results] For RT, univariate analysis demonstrated significant main effects in the within-group comparison of the three tests as well as the interaction effect of two groups × three tests, whereas the between-group comparison showed no significant effect. The results for RA showed no significant differences in neither the between-group comparison nor the interaction effect of two groups × three tests, whereas the within-group comparison of the three tests showed a significant main effect. [Conclusion] Distributed practice led to enhancement of motor skill acquisition at the first inter-session interval as well as at the second inter-interval the following day, compared to massed practice. Consequentially, the results of this study suggest that a distributed practice schedule can enhance the effectiveness of motor sequential learning in 1-day learning as well as for two days learning formats compared to massed practice.

Motor skill learning has become an important issue, due to the increasing involvement of human movement behaviors in neuroscience, psychology, and physical education1,2,3,4,5). However, until now, motor learning has puzzled contemporary science, and its mechanisms and contributing factors remaining unclear. How motor skills are acquired and processed by the neuromuscular system has become a topic of interest. Furthermore, application methods for improving motor skills have been spotlighted in order to increase the capability of motor performance2, 6,7,8). Several factors related to motor learning are already well known, in terms of amount of practice, types of feedback, application period of feedback, practice schedule, and so forth9,10,11,12).

Leave a Comment