SynthesisScientific reports2024
High contextual interference improves retention in motor learning: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of contextual interference on transfer in motor learning - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Acute effects of random, serial and constant intensities of isometric knee extensions on neuromuscular fatigability and motor control.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Effects of adaptive error-threshold practice on soccer instep kick learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Imposed versus self-chosen organization during exercise: comparison of two modalities involving randomness, on mental and physical responses.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Effect of Self-Controlled Feedback on Motor Learning and Its Association with Metacognitive Ability.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Curriculum effects in multitask learning through the lens of contextual inference.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2025Review
- Exploring Whether Making Second-Language Vocabulary Learning Difficult Enhances Retention and Transfer.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Neurosciences and Sports Rehabilitation in ACLR: A Narrative Review on Winning Alliance Strategies and Connecting the Dots.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- Effects of self-control of feedback timing on motor learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of practice schedule on retention and transfer has been studied since the first publication on contextual interference (CI) in 1966. However, strongly advocated by scientists and practitioners, the CI effect also aroused some doubts. Therefore, our objective was to review the existing literature on CI and to determine how it affects retention in motor learning. We found 1255 articles in the following databases: Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, supplemented by the Google Scholar search engine. We screened full texts of 294 studies, of which 54 were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analyses, two different models were applied, i.e., a three-level mixed model and random-effects model with averaged effect sizes from single studies. According to both analyses, high CI has a medium beneficial effect on the whole population. These effects were statistically significant. We found that the random practice schedule in laboratory settings effectively improved motor skills retention. On the contrary, in the applied setting, the beneficial effect of random practice on the retention was almost negligible. The random schedule was more beneficial for retention in older adults (large effect size) and in adults (medium effect size). In young participants, the pooled effect size was negligible and statically insignificant.
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.