No description available.

AIM The purpose of this experiment is to assess whether the advantages of variable practice are due to schema formation or to enhanced information processing (contextual interference) alone. DESIGN The design involved a 2 (mode; cognitive and motor) x 5 (practice schedule; blocked, random, constant distance one, constant distance two, and constant distance three) between subjects design resulting in ten groups. One hundred participants were randomly chosen from Human Movement students at Australian Catholic University and assigned to each of the ten groups (n=10). The cognitive mode involved the participants having to recognise the appropriate target from three geometrical shapes (triangle, square or circle), the triangle being the target in every case. The motor mode involved the participants having to tap on the target among three boxes that was merely filled in. The experiment consisted of ninety (3 blocks of 30) acquisition trials followed by ten transfer trials to a novel movement. MAIN HYPOTHESIS It was hypothesised that if facilitated transfer to a novel target occurs through schema formation, then there would be no differences between the motor groups and their corresponding cognitive groups. However, if facilitated transfer to a novel target occurs through enhanced information processing, then there would be differences between the motor groups and their corresponding cognitive groups. RESULTS Statistical analysis revealed a contextual interference effect for participants involved in the cognitive mode, in that the cognitive blocked group outperformed the cognitive random group in acquisition, but the reverse was the case in transfer. In the motor mode, the motor blocked group outperformed the motor random group in acquisition, and repeated the performance in transfer. CONCLUSION The results appear to indicate that for simple motor tasks it is the amount of variability of practice that is important for transfer to a novel task, while for tasks with a cognitive component, the schedule of practice is critical.

abstract: Adapting to one novel condition of a motor task has been shown to generalize to other naïve conditions (i.e., motor generalization). In contrast, learning one task affects the proficiency of another task that is altogether different (i.e. motor transfer). Much more is known about motor generalization than about motor transfer, despite of decades of behavioral evidence. Moreover, motor generalization is studied as a probe to understanding how movements in any novel situations are affected by previous experiences. Thus, one could assume that mechanisms underlying transfer from trained to untrained tasks may be same as the ones known to be underlying motor generalization. However, the direct relationship between transfer and generalization has not yet been shown, thereby limiting the assumption that transfer and generalization rely on the same mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to test whether there is a relationship between motor generalization and motor transfer. To date, ten healthy young adult subjects were scored on their motor generalization ability and motor transfer ability on various upper extremity tasks. Although our current sample size is too small to clearly identify whether there is a relationship between generalization and transfer, Pearson product-moment correlation results and a priori power analysis suggest that a significant relationship will be observed with an increased sample size by 30%. If so, this would suggest that the mechanisms of transfer may be similar to those of motor generalization. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Biomedical Engineering 2018

This thesis develops methods of task localization, task similarity discovery, and task transfer for eventual use in a reinforcement learning task library system, which can effectively “learn to learn,” improving its performance as it encounters various tasks over the lifetime of the learning system.