1 / 23

Insert

Insert. Disentangling the contextual interference (CI) effect from an information processing perspective. David L. Wright Human Performance Laboratories Texas A&M University. A T M. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979). Key Contributors. Dr. Yuhua Li University of Memphis.

lily
Download Presentation

Insert

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Insert Disentangling the contextual interference (CI) effect from an information processing perspective David L. Wright Human Performance Laboratories Texas A&M University ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  2. Key Contributors Dr. Yuhua Li University of Memphis Dr. Maarten Immink University of South Australia Curt Magnuson Texas A&M University Dr. Charles Black Shippensburg University Dr. Willem B. Verwey University of Twente Dr. Don A. Robin UT Health Science Center Dr. Charles H. Shea Texas A&M University ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  3. Presentation Overview Presentation Overview The structure of this presentation will be to: • Identify theoreticalaccounts for why increased CI facilitates subsequent recall • Briefly examine a common prediction from these theoretical accounts regarding cognitive load • Consider one component process, programming, as a contributor to the differential cognitive loads • Identify future effort to use this component process work and its role during practice scheduling to address rehabilitation issue ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  4. Theoretical Accounts Presentation Overview Theoretical Accounts • Elaborative processing (Shea & Zimny, 1983; 1985) focuses on structure and richness of memory representations • Forgetting-reconstruction (Lee & Magill, 1983;1985) emphasizes the mental operations occurring from trial-to-trial ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979) NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  5. Elaborative Processing Supplemental inter-task processing helps Accounts ATM Adapted from Wright (1991) JMB, 23(2), 139-145. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  6. Forgetting-Reconstruction • Short-term memory paradigm • Lee, Weeks, & Elliott, 1987; Weeks & Lee, 1987; but see Shea & Wright, 1991 • Learning Paradigm • Lee, Wishart, Cunningham, & Carnahan, 1996 • Self-select paradigm • Immink & Wright, 1998; 2001 • Dual-task paradigm • Li & Wright, 2000 Common Prediction Larger demand during random practice ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  7. A common prediction: Self-select paradigm Execution Execution GO GO END Precue Precue Ready Fixed Fixed Ready Varied (Study Time) ATM Adapted from Immink & Wright (1998) QJEP, 51A(2), 735-754. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  8. A common prediction: Self-select paradigm Greater planning cost during random practice 2 1 ATM Adapted from Immink & Wright (1998) QJEP, 51A(2), 735-754. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  9. A common prediction: Dual-Task paradigm Greater planning cost during a random trial ATM Adapted from Li & Wright (2000) QJEP, 53A(2), 591-606. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  10. Locus of Demand: Programming • Programming as retrieval in sense of reconstruction • RT may depend on the time required to retrieve programs from long-term memory (LTM)……. Retrieval time may increase as a function of the complexity of the response because of differences in the time required to reconstruct a response representation from a code in LTM. ATM Klapp, 1996, p.14 NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  11. Locus of Additional Demand: Programming • INT process (pre-programmed)** • focuses on the internal features of an element or chunk of movement and the time to resolve this component process depends on the complexity of the chunk (e.g., duration of response) • SEQ process (occurs after imperative) • focuses on sequencing multiple chunks into the correct order. This component process is determined by the number of chunks. ** Influence of random practice ATM Adapted from Klapp (1996; 1999) NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  12. Self-select paradigm Execution GO END Precue Reaction Time SEQ Sequence Length Ready Study Time INT Element Duration** ** Influence of random practice ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  13. Programming INT (ST): Short vs. Long Greater INTcost but similar performance during random practice Acquisition ATM Adapted from Immink & Wright (2001) JEP, 53A(2), 591-606. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  14. Programming INT (ST): Short vs. Long Lower INTcost and superior performance following random practice Retention ATM Adapted from Immink & Wright (2001) JEP, 53A(2), 591-606. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  15. Programming INT (ST): 1 vs. 4 ATM Taken from Immink & Wright (2001) JEP, 53A(2), 591-606. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  16. Replicating Short vs. Long Effect Acquisition Retention ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  17. SEQ programming with ↑ practice ATM Taken from Wright et al. (2004) JMB, 36(1), 39-50. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  18. INT programming with ↑ practice ATM Taken from Wright et al. (2004) JMB, 36(1), 39-50. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  19. Other Component Processes • Perception – perceptual fluency • (Fendrich, Healy, & Bourne, 1991) • Selection – application of rules (varied-constant mapping) • (Wright, Magnuson, & Verwey, submitted) ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  20. Future Effort: Apraxia of Speech is a motor speech disorder characterized by increased segment and intersegment durations (INT problem), segmentation of sounds and syllables (SEQ problem), speech sound distortions, and dysprosody. The contemporary consensus is that AOS represents a speech motor programming deficit. ATM Maas, Robin, Wright & Ballard (2008). Brain & Language, 106, 107–118. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  21. Future Effort: Apraxia of Speech Data are consistent with: a programming issue in AOS a “general” programming issue not one restricted to the speech apparatus ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  22. Future Effort: Apraxia of Speech "Principles Most Often Suggested as Important to the Treatment of Developmental Apraxia of Speech:1. Use of intensive paired auditory and visual stimuli2. Production of sound combinations vs. isolated phoneme training3. Focus on movement performance drill4. Use of repetitive production and intensive systematic drill5. Careful construction of hierarchies of stimuli6. Use of decreased rate with proprioceptive monitoring7. Use of carrier phrases8. Use of paired movement of sequences with suprasegmental facilitators such as stress, intonation, and rhythm9. Establishment of core vocabulary (especially for the nonverbal child)“ Can we use random practice to enhance rehabilitation ATM Seminars in Speech and Language, Vol. 16, No. 2, May 1995. NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

  23. Presentation Overview Presentation Review The presentation: • Reviewed theoreticalaccounts for why increased CI facilitates subsequent recall • Examined a common prediction from these theoretical accounts regarding cognitive load • Considered the contribution of one component process, programming, to the differential cognitive loads • Identified an initial effort to apply these findings to a rehabilitation setting ATM NASPSPA 2009 – Shea & Morgan (1979)

More Related