ArticlePloS one2024
The learning of sprint hurdles: A comparative study on increasing contextual interference and blocked practice schedules.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The contextual interference (CI) approach has proposed that a random order of practice for motor skills is superior in facilitating learning compared to a blocked arrangement of practice trials. Two groups of physical education students learned sprint hurdles, employing either an increasing CI practice schedule (n = 23) or a blocked practice schedule (n = 23). In both the practice schedules, the same exercises were used in a different trial order during each learning session. Eleven practice sessions were conducted over a period of six weeks, with two days of practice per week. Ten and 40 days after the acquisition phase, a retention and transfer test were conducted. The results showed no differences between the two practice schedules during the retention tests. However, students practicing with an increasing CI arrangement performed better on the delayed transfer test compared to students which practiced with a blocked schedule. Specifically, the increasing CI group more effectively (p < 0.05) cleared the hurdles due to a lower take-off step angle and longer step length than the blocked practice group. Although utilizing an increase in CI during the learning phase of sprint hurdling produced more persistent learning effects relative to a traditional blocked practice schedule for adult novice learners, further research is warranted to explore the CI effect across a broader range of sport skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.