The Effect of the Practice Specificity Principle on the Performance and Retention of a Perceptual-Motor Skill: A Quasi-Experimental Study with Application for Sports and Rehabilitation

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors
Sayed Kavos Salehi 1
Farzaneh Hatami 2
Sara Kamalvandian 3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran, Iran
3 MSc, Department of Motor Behavior, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran, Iran
10.48305/jrrs.2024.42392.1079
Abstract
Introduction: This study was conducted to determine the effect of the specificity of practice principle on the performance and retention of dart-throwing skills.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with an applied purpose. A pretest-posttest protocol was implemented across two training conditions (normal and specific), consisting of an acquisition period and a retention test for each group. The independent variable was the principle of practice specificity, while the dependent variables were the performance and retention of the perceptual-motor skill of dart throwing. The statistical population comprised students aged 12 to 15 years from 8th district of Tehran City, Iran. The final sample consisted of 30 participants who were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned into two groups of 15. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics as well as independent t-test and paired t-test.
Results: The results indicated a significant difference in the performance on the post-test and retention of dart-throwing skills between identical and non-identical conditions in both the normal and specific training groups (P < 0.001). Specifically, performance on the post-test and retention phases that matched the training conditions was significantly superior to performance in mismatched conditions. These findings provide empirical support for the principle of specificity of training.
Conclusion: These findings are consistent with the specificity of practice principle, highlighting the significant impact of contextual conditions on subsequent performance. Based on these results, it is recommended that when teaching perceptual-motor skills, the environmental conditions of practice should closely mirror the real-world settings in which the skill is intended to be performed.

Keywords

Subjects

1.     Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (6th Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 2019.
2.     Harris DJ, Buckingham G, Wilson MR, Brookes J, Mushtaq F, Mon-Williams M, Vine SJ. The effect of a virtual reality environment on gaze behavior and motor skill learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2020; 50: 101721.
3.     Movahedi A, Sheikh M, Bagherzadeh F, Hemayattalab R, Ashayeri H. A practice-specificity-based model of arousal for achieving peak performance. Journal of motor behavior. 2007; 39(6): 457-62.
4.     Moradi J, Movahedi A, Salehi H. Specificity of learning a sport skill to the visual condition of acquisition. Journal of motor behavior. 2014; 46(1): 17-23.
5.     Proteau L. On the specificity of learning and the role of visual information for movement control. Advances in psychology. 1992; 85: 67-103.
6.     Elliott DI, Jaeger ME. Practice and the visual control of manual aiming movements. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1988; 14(6): 279-91.
7.     Proteau L, Tremblay L, Dejaeger D. Practice does not diminish the role of visual information in on-line control of a precision walking task: Support for the specificity of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1998; 30(2): 143-50.
8.     Tremblay L, Proteau L. Specificity of practice: The case of powerlifting. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 1998; 69(3): 284-9.
9.     Lawrence GP, Cassell VE, Beattie S, Woodman T, Khan MA, Hardy L, Gottwald VM. Practice with anxiety improves performance, but only when anxious: evidence for the specificity of practice hypothesis. Psychological research. 2014; 78: 634-50.
10.  Sugiyama T, Liew SL. The effects of sensory manipulations on motor behavior: from basic science to clinical rehabilitation. Journal of motor behavior. 2017; 49(1): 67-77.
11.  Whiting HT, Savelsbergh GJ, and Pijpers JR. Specificity of motor learning does not deny flexibility. Applied Psychology. 1995; 44(4): 315-32.
12.  Bennett S, Davids K. The manipulation of vision during the powerlift squat: Exploring the boundaries of the specificity of learning hypothesis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport. 1995; 66(3): 210-8.
13.  Bouffard J, Bouyer LJ, Roy JS, Mercier C. Pain induced during both the acquisition and retention phases of locomotor adaptation does not interfere with improvements in motor performance. Neural plasticity. 2016; 2016.
14.  Salehi SK, Sheikh M, Hemayattalab R, Humaneyan D. The Effect of Age-Related Changes and Explicit and Implicit Awareness on Mixed Motor Sequence Learning and its Consolidation. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2016; 12(1): 1-9.
15.  Newell A, Rosenbloom PS. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Cognitive skills and their acquisition 2013 Oct 28 (pp. 1-55). Psychology Press.
16.  De Camargo Barros JA, Tani G, Corrêa UC. Effects of practice schedule and task specificity on the adaptive process of motor learning. Human movement science. 2017; 55: 196-210.
17.  Blandin Y, Toussaint L, Shea CH. Specificity of practice hypothesis: The relation between sensory information and extrinsic feedback. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2007; 29.
18.  Mackrous I, Proteau L. Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies. Experimental brain research. 2007; 183: 181-93.
19.  Yoshida M, Cauraugh JH, Chow JW. Specificity of practice, visual information, and intersegmental dynamics in rapid-aiming limb movements. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2004; 36(3): 281-90.
20.  Krigolson OE, Tremblay L. The amount of practice really matters: specificity of practice may be valid only after sufficient practice. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2009; 80(2): 197-204.
21.  Toussaint L, Robin N, Blandin Y. On the content of sensorimotor representations after actual and motor imagery practice. Motor Control. 2010; 14(2): 159-75.
22.  Robertson S, Collins J, Elliott D, Starkes J. The influence of skill and intermittent vision on dynamic balance. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1994; 26(4): 333-9.
23.  Bouffard J, Bouyer LJ, Roy JS, Mercier C. Tonic pain experienced during locomotor training impairs retention despite normal performance during acquisition. Journal of Neuroscience. 2014; 34(28): 9190-5.
24.  Harris DJ, Bird JM, Smart PA, Wilson MR, Vine SJ. A framework for the testing and validation of simulated environments in experimentation and training. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11: 605.
25.  Howard IS, Wolpert DM, Franklin DW. The effect of contextual cues on the encoding of motor memories. Journal of neurophysiology. 2013; 109(10): 2632-44.
26.  Proteau L, Carnahan H. What causes specificity of practice in a manual aiming movement: Vision dominance or transformation errors? Journal of Motor Behavior. 2001; 33(3): 226-34.
27.  Proteau L, Isabelle G. On the role of visual afferent information for the control of aiming movements toward targets of different sizes. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2002; 34(4): 367-84.
28.  Proteau L. Visual afferent information dominates other sources of afferent information during mixed practice of a video-aiming task. Experimental Brain Research. 2005; 161: 441-56.