Title |
Working Memory Capacity Limits Motor Learning When Implementing Multiple Instructions
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01350 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tim Buszard, Damian Farrow, Simone J. J. M. Verswijveren, Machar Reid, Jacqueline Williams, Remco Polman, Fiona Chun Man Ling, Rich S. W. Masters |
Abstract |
Although it is generally accepted that certain practice conditions can place large demands on working memory (WM) when performing and learning a motor skill, the influence that WM capacity has on the acquisition of motor skills remains unsubstantiated. This study examined the role of WM capacity in a motor skill practice context that promoted WM involvement through the provision of explicit instructions. A cohort of 90 children aged 8 to 10 years were assessed on measures of WM capacity and attention. Children who scored in the lowest and highest thirds on the WM tasks were allocated to lower WM capacity (n = 24) and higher WM capacity (n = 24) groups, respectively. The remaining 42 participants did not participate in the motor task. The motor task required children to practice basketball shooting for 240 trials in blocks of 20 shots, with pre- and post-tests occurring before and after the intervention. A retention test was administered 1 week after the post-test. Prior to every practice block, children were provided with five explicit instructions that were specific to the technique of shooting a basketball. Results revealed that the higher WM capacity group displayed consistent improvements from pre- to post-test and through to the retention test, while the opposite effect occurred in the lower WM capacity group. This implies that the explicit instructions had a negative influence on learning by the lower WM capacity children. Results are discussed in relation to strategy selection for dealing with instructions and the role of attention control. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
Australia | 2 | 6% |
United States | 2 | 6% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Thailand | 1 | 3% |
Ireland | 1 | 3% |
Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 23 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 21 | 64% |
Scientists | 9 | 27% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 170 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 17 | 10% |
Researcher | 11 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
Other | 26 | 15% |
Unknown | 61 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 44 | 26% |
Psychology | 16 | 9% |
Neuroscience | 13 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 5% |
Other | 13 | 8% |
Unknown | 65 | 38% |