↓ Skip to main content

Working Memory Capacity Limits Motor Learning When Implementing Multiple Instructions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,823,726
of 26,552,141 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,786
of 35,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,453
of 331,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#86
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,552,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.