See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/349471098

Variability of Practice, Information Processing, and Decision Making—How

Much Do We Know?

Article in Frontiers in Psychology · February 2021

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131

CITATIONS READS

8 714

1 author:

Stanislaw H. Czyz
Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego we Wrocławiu
53 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Physical Fitness, Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, or Diet—What Are the Correlates of Obesity in Polish School Children? View project

B-Healthy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanislaw H. Czyz on 02 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REVIEW
published: 19 February 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131

Variability of Practice, Information

Processing, and Decision
Making—How Much Do We Know?
Stanisław H. Czyż 1,2,3*
1
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, University School of Physical Education in Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland, 2 Faculty of
Sport Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia, 3 Physical Activity, Sport and Recreation Research Focus Area, North-West
University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Decision-making is a complex action requiring efficient information processing.

Specifically, in movement in which performance efficiency depends on reaction time, e.g.,
open-loop controlled movements, these processes may play a crucial role. Information
processing includes three distinct stages, stimulus identification, response selection, and
response programming. Mainly, response selection may play a substantial contribution to
the reaction time and appropriate decision making. The duration of this stage depends on
the number of possible choices an individual has to “screen” to make a proper decision.
Given that reaction time is crucial in many sports, the possibilities of reducing it through
practice are very tempting. The information processing and its relationship to the manner
Edited by: an individual is practicing are discussed. Especially the variability of practice issues will
Filipe Manuel Clemente,
Polytechnic Institute of Viana Do
be explored. In variable practice conditions, an individual has to react to one or more
Castelo, Portugal stimuli and has to produce one of the many variations of the same movement or different
Reviewed by: movements they learned. One has to identify a stimulus appropriately and has to select
David Sherwood, a response optimally, i.e., choosing from as few choices as possible to reduce the
University of Colorado Boulder,
United States reaction time. On the other hand, in constant practice conditions, an individual can be
Henrique de Oliveira Castro, exposed to one or many stimuli. Still, there is only one variation of the movement that can
Federal University of Mato
Grosso, Brazil
be executed in the presence of a learned stimulus. Based on the information processing
*Correspondence:
theory and the results of the research focusing on variability of practice, I discuss how
Stanisław H. Czyż the practice conditions may affect reaction time and, as a result, the decision-making
[Link]@[Link] process. I conceptually frame the possible implications of practice conditions on decision
making related to information processing. In this review, a possible mechanism and
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to relationship between practice conditions and decision-making are presented. Future
Movement Science and Sport research directions are presented.
Psychology,
a section of the journal Keywords: variability of practice, specificity of practice, information processing, motor learning, decision making,
Frontiers in Psychology practice conditions
Received: 08 December 2020
Accepted: 22 January 2021
Published: 19 February 2021 INTRODUCTION
Citation:
Czyż SH (2021) Variability of Practice,
When we practice a motor skill, we usually do it in the practice conditions that will
Information Processing, and Decision prepare us for the future situations optimally. The optimum in this case means that we
Making—How Much Do We Know? want to be prepared either for an unexpected non-trained situation or we would like to
Front. Psychol. 12:639131. perform the acquired skill without any changes in its execution. In the former example, we
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131 aim at transfer of the acquired skill into a new situation. In the latter example, we want

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 1 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

to stabilize the movement and perform it without any changes in (Schmidt et al., 1978). Trial-to-trial variability or variability in
its kinetic and spatio-temporal structure. motor performance decreases while practice progresses (Deutsch
We may organize our practice manipulating many learning and Newell, 2004), but it is never eliminated (Cohen and Sternad,
conditions: schedule (randomization), amount and distribution 2009). The term variability used in such context is not related
of practice, introducing part vs. entirety learning, or reducing to the practice condition itself. The variability in performance
the amount of feedback, etc. We may even choose between is usually tested in very stable, predictable, and in as similar as
different learning approaches, e.g., observational, discovery possible (constant) trial-to-trial conditions (Cohen and Sternad,
or self-regulated learning, to prepare us better for future 2009). The theories explaining variability in performance are
situations. There are already a number of studies focusing on the usually dynamical system theories, e.g., Bernstein’s (1967, 1982),
mechanisms and benefits and disadvantages of each approach ecological (Gibson and Gibson, 1955; Gibson and Pick, 2000;
and condition manipulation. Researchers have also identified Gibson, 2014), or Newell’s dynamical systems theories (Newell,
how condition manipulation utilizes cognitive resources. 1985, 1991).
Scheduling practice or randomization is one of the examples of The second context term “variability” is used in in motor
such interest (e.g., Lee et al., 1994; Lee and Simon, 2004; Lee, learning is variability of practice or variable practice conditions.
2012; Wright and Kim, 2020). Similarly, many studies were Again, the meaning of this term may vary depending on the
conducted on feedback and its facilitating role in motor learning context. Originally, it was one of the consequences or ideas
(Anderson et al., 2020). drawn from the Schmidt’ schema theory (Schmidt, 1975, 2003;
However, we know very little about what are the mechanisms Van Rossum, 1990; Sherwood and Lee, 2003). Variability of
responsible for the different benefits and disadvantages of practice was used to explain the motor learning process. Motor
variability in practice. We do not know much either about learning was a function of variability in practice (Boyce et al.,
information processing and decision-making involved in variable 2006). The term variability is also used when discussing practice
and constant condition practice. Therefore, it is crucial to scheduling or order of practice. The term variability in such
synthesize already existing knowledge and frame it for future context means random practice and it relates to the contextual
research directions. A critical question is whether practice in interference phenomenon (Battig, 1966, 1972; Shea and Morgan,
variable conditions affects information processing and decision- 1979). Although it makes sense to talk about variability of
making process differently than in constant conditions. I attempt practice in random conditions (in high contextual interference),
to answer this question reviewing already existing literature. it may confuse people whether high contextual interference is
At first, the term “variability of practice” is defined. The lack the same as variable practice. Moreover, some authors use them
of common terminology, interchangeable use of the term in interchangeably. The possible demarcations between these terms
different contexts and meanings, and differing views is the reason are shown in Figure 1.
it has to be defined at first. Secondly, we need to theoretically
frame the phenomenon of “variability.” Two perspectives, i.e., THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
schema theory and dynamic systems theory, will serve as a
conceptual frame for further consideration. The information The variability of practice was one of the key elements of
processing will be used as a base for further analysis. However, Schmidt’s schema theory. Dynamic theories were able to explain
I will not focus on decision making processes related to the variability of practice benefits and disadvantages too, however,
anticipation problem. These issues were quite comprehensively they were much better in explaining variability in performance
and exhaustively discussed in recent publications (Abernethy as a consequence of the three learning stages recognized
et al., 2012; Williams and Jackson, 2019). in Bernstein’s theory, i.e., freezing, freeing, and exploiting
(Huys et al., 2004).

VARIABILITY OF PRACTICE AND Schema Theory

VARIABILITY IN PERFORMANCE Richard A. Schmidt developed his theory around two major
assumptions (Schmidt, 1975, 1985, 2003). Firstly, he assumed
The term variability is used in two contexts. The first one relates that there is a motor program stored in memory. It is called
to the variability in movement performance. It is also called Generalized Motor Program (GMP) and it is responsible for
trial-to-trial variability. When used in such context, the term producing movements which belong to the same class (or
variability means that movements belonging to the same class category) of movements (Schmidt et al., 2018). GMP is described
of action are never performed identically. There are differences by the amount of force and spatial and temporal patterns of
between trials due to inherent motor noise, i.e., trial-to-trial movement. It is specified by invariant features, i.e., patterns
variability in the execution of the movement (Dhawale et al., that are completely fixed from movement to movement, namely,
2017). This issue is specifically exploited by neuroscientists as the relative force, relative timing, and order of sequences (Schmidt,
trial-to-trial variability is considered an undesirable consequence 1985; Schmidt et al., 2018). There are also patterns of action that
of a noise in the motor system. This noise is related to the amount can be easily changed to control the force, sequencing and timing
of force produced, i.e., the noise increases as the amount of force of movement. These are called parameters. By manipulating
increases (Schmidt et al., 1979). The relationship between noise the parameters, an individual can adjust movement to a given
in the motor system and amount of force produced is linear situation. The relationship between parameters and outcomes

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 2 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 1 | The context the “variability of performance” or “variability of practice” terms can be used.

is called recall schema (Sherwood and Lee, 2003; Boyce et al., than schema attainment, i.e., parameters assignment to the
2006). Schmidt’s theory assumed that individuals acquire motor already existing motor program (Kerr, 1982; Van Rossum, 1987).
skills by developing schemata. As the learning progresses, one Therefore, research should focus on a novel task and naïve
knows more relationships between parameter assignment and an participants to exclusively deal with schema development. The
outcome, and, as a result, the schema is better established. And assumption behind this recommendation (Schmidt, 1975) was
vice versa, the better is the schema developed, the more efficiently based on the conjecture that children have fewer schemata than
an individual can behave in a new situation. In other words, adults, and this is why research on children more often supports
variable practice, i.e., learning relationships between parameters the variability of practice hypothesis.
and outcomes, should enhance learning (Boyce et al., 2006). However, the review of studies utilizing children yielded
Moreover, individuals who practice more relationships should be equivocal results too, a few studies supported, and a few were
better prepared for a novel situation. The simplest way of making contradictory to the variability of practice hypothesis (Van
individuals learn more relationships between parameters and Rossum, 1990). Another explanation for the equivocality of the
outcomes is to make them assign different parameters to achieve findings was provided by Lee et al. (1985). They suggested
the same or different goal. This type of practice is called “variable that it may be due to the scheduling of learned and tested
practice” as opposed to “constant practice,” i.e., practicing only tasks. Consequently, a distinction between random and blocked
one relationship between a set of parameters and one outcome. practice should be made. It directly refers to the contextual
Sue Moxley termed this implication of the schema theory “the interference effect.
variability of practice hypothesis” (Moxley, 1979).
The variability of practice hypothesis was tested in many Contextual Interference
researches and many contexts, albeit not conclusively supporting Contextual interference (CI) effect has been originally described
the theory implication that performance on a novel task will be by Battig (1966), although the first study in motor learning was
better following variable practice as opposed to the constant (Van conducted by Shea and Morgan (1979). Battig reported that
Rossum, 1987, 1990). The biggest inconsistency between research the way the practice is scheduled affects differently immediate
results and theory implications was about the age of the learners performance and retention and transfer. When the practice was
(Shapiro and Schmidt, 1982; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990). Studies organized in so-called “random order,” i.e., it consisted of the
in children supported the variability of practice hypothesis more performance of multiple motor skills in a random and rapidly
often, whereas research in adults were at least equivocal, and changing order, it was defined as high CI. When the practice
in some cases contradictory (Shapiro and Schmidt, 1982; Van was organized (scheduled) in “blocked order,” it also consisted
Rossum, 1987). It was argued that the variability of practice of the performance of multiple motor skills, however, each skill
hypothesis refers to the schema formation (development) rather was repeatedly practiced until the number or time/number of

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 3 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

trials allocated to that skill was used and it was practiced prior schema theory. They define movement or a class of movement.
to the introduction of the next skill. The blocked order was We use them to distinguish and recognize movements from
defined as a low CI. Battig (1966) noted that high CI hinders different classes of movements. On the other hand, control
performance during acquisition time, i.e., performance during parameters can change enabling to modify/adapt movement
practice is worse compared to the low CI practice. However, the to the environmental requirements. They could be compared
high CI practice facilitates retention. Participants learning in high to parameters in Schmidt’s schema theory. However, unlike
CI conditions had better retention results compared to the low CI in schema theory, systematic changes in control parameters
practice groups. may lead to changes in stable states, i.e., one stable state may
Both schedules, i.e., random and blocked, refer to the variable change into another stable state. According to the dynamical
practice. However, they refer to different degrees of variability systems theory, the stability of the system emerges under
(Van Rossum, 1990) (see Figure 2). It is rational to assume that environmental, organismic, and task constraints (Newell, 1986).
blocked practice is less variable than random. In both of them, These constraints act as limits or boundaries of the systems. Every
although, individuals practice at least two tasks. movement is executed and produced within given limits. These
Furthermore, there is a substantial difference between limits may change depending on the systems interrelationships,
variability of practice effects grounded in Schmidt’s schema however, the goal of the motor task still can be achieved.
theory and variability of practice described by the contextual Similarly, variability of practice as well as variability in
interference effect. According to Schmidt’s schema theory, performance (trial to trial) is at the core of the dynamical systems
variability refers to a practice involving several variations of theory. The theory’s proponents assume that individuals can
motor skill, governed, and executed by the same GMP, i.e., achieve a goal using different coordination patterns. This concept
belonging to the same class of movements. On the other hand, is called degeneracy (Davids et al., 2007). The variability in
the contextual interference effect can be found not only for motor performance is therefore, associated with different coordination
skill variations controlled by the same GMP but also for variation patterns, yet allowing individuals to achieve a goal–the motor
of skills controlled by different GMPs (Magill and Hall, 1990). We task outcome. Moreover, variability in performance is an
could therefore argue that there are different levels of variability immanent characteristic of movement in skilled individuals. It
depending on whether the randomization consists of variations is because they are able to free the structure of movement, e.g.,
of the same motor skills (same GMP) or variations of different change their limbs’ relationships although the limbs are still
skills (different GMPs) (Figure 2). complementing each other, adjusting their particular movements
Another term used in experimental psychology and cognitive to achieve a given task outcome.
neuroscience is task switching. These terms, contextual The concept of degeneracy is also used when referring to
interference and task switching, are not used interchangeably. the variability of practice since it allows an individual to adapt
They also are attributed to different sources. Contextual movement to different constraints. The dynamic systems theory
interference comes from Battig (1966) and task switching assumes that each person is different and the environmental
approach from Jersild (1927). However, there are quite a lot of context is constantly changing, therefore, degeneracy permits
similarities between these two approaches. “In task-switching a flexible adaptation to the new context. Consequently, it
experiments, participants perform a discrete task on each trial. On is essential to practice and learn while manipulating task
some trials the task changes (switch trials), and on others it does constraints as it prepares an individual for new situations with
not (repeat trials)” (Kiesel et al., 2010) (p.849). One can notice different task and environmental constraints as well as it “trains”
that repeat trials are analogous to blocked order whereas switch systems to adapt.
trials to random order. As one may notice, variability of practice is at the core
of both approaches: motor program and dynamical systems
Dynamical Systems Theory theory. Both theories emphasize the role of variability of
The problem of variability of practice is also addressed in practice as a tool for either the development of schemata
dynamical systems theory. According to the dynamical systems or increasing systems adaptability due to changing tasks and
theory, individuals adapt their movements to efficiently act in environmental constraints.
a complex environment (Davids et al., 2008). Variable practice
helps to learn how to interact with the environment. The theory Information Processing
assumes that learning is a dynamical non-linear process when In both the above described theories, information processing
movement with unstable relationships between systems changes plays an important role. However, given they utilize different
into a stable one. The systems stable state is invariant, i.e., it approaches to information processing, a short description should
returns to a stable state after it is perturbed (Magill and Anderson, be provided.
2017). The states in which the systems are steady stable are called In dynamic systems theory, information processing,
attractors (Davids et al., 2008). According to dynamic systems specifically visual information processing, assumes that visual
theory, movements can be characterized by order and control information is automatically processed in the way it constraints
parameters. Order parameters enable to distinguish a movement the motor system to produce an efficient movement (Gibson,
with one set of coordination variables from another with a 1979; Scully and Newell, 1985; Davids et al., 2008). This theory is
different set (Magill and Anderson, 2017). We could say that the called the dynamic theory of visual perception. It questions the
order parameters are analogous to invariant features in Schmidt’s need for coding and storing symbolic information in memory.

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 4 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 2 | Degrees of variability from the least variable practice, i.e., constant practice, to the most variable, i.e., practice of different skills (e.g., cognitive and motor).

FIGURE 3 | Three stages of the classical information processing model.

This assumption is one of the fundaments of the dynamic information processing model consists of three stages: stimulus
systems theory. However, Gibson’s theory of direct perception identification, response selection, and response programming
was doubted by Pizlo (2008). According to Pizlo, 3-dimensional (see Figure 3).
shapes reconstructed in our brain from 2-dimensional images At the first stage, i.e., stimulus identification, a stimulus
on our retina cannot be directly processed without additional is detected and recognized. During the recognition process,
information stored in our memory. The inverse problem and an identifiable pattern of the stimulus is extracted and then
its elucidation by Pizlo (2008) eventually falsified Gibson’s processed as a meaningful one. At the second stage, i.e., response
dynamic perspective on visual perception. Therefore, the selection, a decision what to do in response to the recognized
classical theory of information processing much better explains pattern of a stimulus is made. This is a decision-making process,
the decision-making problems. absorbing cognitive resources, time-consuming, and energy-
The so-called “classical” (Schmidt et al., 2018) information consuming. At the response programming stage (Henry and
processing model assumes that the whole process can be divided Rogers, 1960), the third and last stage of the classical information
into distinctive stages. The stages were recognized based on processing model, an individual has to translate the selected in
reaction time (RT) measures. The original idea of studying the previous stage idea (an abstract idea of what to do) to specific
information processing using RT was introduced by Donders and realistic commands for the motor system.
(Donders, 1868) and developed further as a chronometric There are a few variations of the classical model. They
approach (Sternberg, 1969; Posner, 1978). The classical differ in the way multiple stimuli are processed. Many closely

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 5 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 4 | Serial and parallel order according to various theories of information processing.

spaced stimuli may cause a delay in the information processing that when the number of stimuli to be screened increases from
of the second stimulus–the total RT of the second stimulus one to 32, the RT increases as well by ∼20–30 ms. The number
is prolonged. This phenomenon is called the psychological of 32 stimuli to be screened is equal to 4 bits of information–
refractory period (Telford, 1931). The variations of the classical a measure of uncertainty (Attneave, 1959). Seibel (1963) also
information processing models address the delay issue, proposing noticed that this increase does not follow a linear relationship,
places where “filters” holding on the latter information while and increasing the number of stimuli to be screened from 31 to
processing the former are located. The differences between these 1,023 does not increase the RT. We may assume, however, that
models refer to whether the stages are organized in a parallel increasing the number of possible choices increases RT by at least
or serial order. Another difference between variations of the 20–30 ms up to 120–200 ms as originally noticed by Hick. The
model refers to the place where so-called bottleneck occurs third stage of information processing is response programming.
(Figure 4). Both of these aspects, i.e., order and limited capacity This stage takes at least 120 ms, although its duration is affected
of information processing (bottleneck), are related to attention. by the complexity of a response (movement). The relationship
i.e., the ability to consciously (awarely) perform perceptual, between movement complexity and RT was firstly presented
cognitive, and motor skills at the same time. The limitations in by Henry and Rogers (1960) and was corroborated in many
information processing are one of the characteristics of attention. following studies (Klapp, 1995, 2003). The more complex is the
In a simple reaction task, the reaction time (RT) for one response, the longer it takes to prepare it, i.e., RT is longer.
known stimulus, with one possible response, takes about 200 ms
(Hick, 1952; Henry and Rogers, 1960). The first stage of Attention
information processing, i.e., stimulus identification in a simple Limited capacity of attention is unquestioned these days
reaction task, takes about 30 ms. Response selection, the second (Neumann, 1996). Some of the first theories of attention
stage, takes about 55 ms (Schmidt et al., 2018). However, this emphasized its limitation as one of the most representative
stage has a different time duration depending on the number of features. According to one of the theories, individuals struggle
choices an individual has while deciding what to do. Although the with performing several things at one time, because the
duration of this stage may slightly differ in individuals, according information processing stages are organized in a serial order,
to Hick, every additional choice increases the reaction time by i.e., only one piece of information can be processed at one
about 120–200 ms (Hick, 1952; Hyman, 1953; Proctor and Dutta, moment. This theory is called single-channel theory (Welford,
1995). The linear relationship between the number of choices and 1952). On the other hand, parallel order theories assume that at a
the reaction time is called Hick’s law, or sometimes Hick-Hyman specific information processing stage, there is a bottleneck, where
law (Proctor and Dutta, 1995). Some authors claim that this the information is filtered for further processing. This theory
relationship is not linear. Seibel (1962, 1963), for example, noted was called filter theory (Broadbent, 1958) or bottleneck theory.

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 6 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

Variations of the bottleneck theories differ in terms of placing tasks (or go/no-go). These situations are presented in Figure 6.
the bottleneck at different information processing stages. Some It is quite rational to assume that in real life, we are exposed to
theories claim that the bottleneck (filter) occurs at the stimulus many stimuli, hence this situation is more accurate, e.g., there
identification stage, either at detection (Broadbent, 1958) or are many stimuli when we hunt, but only a specific one, a sight
recognition phase (Deutsch and Deutsch, 1963) (see Figure 4). of a game, makes us to release a rifle trigger. Therefore, the RT
Other theories, e.g., Keele’s late-filter theory (Keele, 1973), placed will depend on how many stimuli we have to screen to recognize
the bottleneck at the response selection stage. the appropriate one. While detecting and recognizing stimuli
patterns during the first stage, we eliminate (drop off) redundant
stimuli and process only one. An individual has to screen all
INFORMATION PROCESSING AND stimuli and see if there is one triggering the planned response
VARIABILITY OF PRACTICE (movement). The process of discriminating one stimulus from
the others may increase RT. Another possible situation is
The keywords “reaction time” or “response time” AND (Boolean when there are more than one stimulus triggering the response
operator) “variability of practice” searched in databases such as (movement) and only one response. Perhaps the number of to-
EBSCO Academic Search Complete, APA PsychInfo, Medline, be-screened stimuli and the number of triggering stimuli may
SPORTDiscus yielded only nine relevant publications (excluding affect RT. However, it has not been confirmed yet. On the other
two duplicates). Within these nine, there was one dissertation hand, the more often an individual is exposed to a stimulus,
abstract and one conference proceeding. Only five of them were the shorter is the stimulus identification stage, specifically the
related to motor learning. Although searched terms appeared in pattern recognition phase. Individuals become better, i.e., faster,
the abstracts, the papers did not specifically focus on information at picking up the patterns of a stimulus. The influence of learning
processing and decision making and variability of practice on pattern detection was firstly demonstrated by Chase and
but rather used reaction or response time as a measure of Simon in chess players (Chase and Simon, 1973), however, this
performance or learning improvement. Search was performed on learning effect is observed across different tasks and skills (Causer
13 November 2020. et al., 2012; North and Williams, 2019; Williams, 2020).
Another search with keywords “decision making” AND We may also assume that in constant practice conditions, the
“variability of practice” did not generate any related publications. non-triggering stimuli would never achieve a later stage, e.g., the
Two relevant publications were found after searching the terms response selection stage, as proposed in Keele’s later stage theory
“information processing” AND “variability of practice” (search (Keele, 1973). Therefore, any increase in RT could be associated
on 15 January 2021), i.e., by Chua et al. (2019) and by Deutsch with the longer stimulus identification stage rather than with
and Newell (2004). Both of them are cited in this paper. response selection or response programming. Yet, there is only
one possible response with one set of parameters ready to be used.
Information Processing in Constant Another problem relates to the similarity between stimuli
Practice Conditions to be recognized. We can only speculate how similarity could
To specify how different practice conditions, affect decision affect information processing and RT and decision making. If an
making, we need to consider how information can be processed individual is exposed to many stimuli of which only one triggers
in a single reaction and discrimination task under constant the response, and the stimuli are not very similar one to another,
practice conditions. Very often, when referring to constant then it should be much easier to “screen” them and recognize
practice conditions, the term “specificity of practice” is used, as stimuli patterns. Recognition could allow to either eliminate
opposed to “variability of practice” when talking about variable the no-triggering stimuli and accept for further processing only
practice conditions. the appropriate one. On the other hand, if the stimuli are very
In constant practice conditions, only one set of parameters is similar one to another, then pattern recognition should be more
assigned and one GMP is used. Therefore, no choice reaction task meticulous and would take more time. Would such in-depth
can be introduced in practice as it would require changing the screening increase the RT? Again, there is no study simply
parameters and perhaps GMPs. As a result, there are only two answering this question. We could draw an analogy from the
possible ways of organizing constant practice. We can either: CI effect in which one of the sources of interference is the
nature of the practiced tasks. The interference is higher when
1. utilize a simple reaction task; or
the performed tasks are more similar one to another (Shea and
2. utilize a discrimination task.
Morgan, 1979; Battig and Shea, 1980). The more similar tasks
The most obvious information processing model in constant which are randomized, the better learning and transfer. However,
practice utilizing a simple reaction task is presented in Figure 5. the high CI caused by the increased similarity of performed tasks
It consists of one stimulus and one corresponding response. hinders performance. The most substantial difference, however,
In the presented situation, no matter whether the information between constant practice with many similar stimuli and only
processing is parallelly or serially ordered. It will not affect the one response and contextual interference with similar tasks
reaction time and decision making. However, constant practice randomized is that in randomized practice the possible responses
may also refer to situations when there is only one possible have to be screened at the response selection stage. There is
reaction which has to be produced in response to only one of the no such need in constant practice conditions. Moreover, the
many stimuli present in our environment, i.e., in discrimination programming of the movements is different for specific tasks

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 7 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 5 | Information processing in a simple reaction task under constant practice conditions.

FIGURE 6 | Information processing in go/no-go reaction task under constant practice conditions. Unfilled arrows indicate the stimuli that have to be recognized as
“go” stimuli. They are processed until the ultimate response production. There is only one possible response since, in constant condition, only one variation of skill is
practiced. Three hypothetical processing are presented: (A,B) in a parallel order where the filter is located at the stimulus identification stage (detection or pattern
recognition phase); (C) in a serial order.

used in random order (Shea and Zimny, 1983; Lee et al., 1985). design in which the environment would involve several similar
It is much more demanding to assign parameters in random stimuli and as a result RT would be longer. Let’s imagine a
order than in blocked order. We may assume that the easiest training drill in tennis, in which a tennis ball machine throws
programming occurs in constant practice. There is only one balls at the baseline or a sideline. A player is asked to hit the ball
possible response and one set of parameters to be assigned, hence which would land inside the court but do not hit a ball which
not additional time is needed to reprogram a response. At this would land outside of the court. Hence, the response would be
point, we can only speculate whether the similarity between the (almost) the same: e.g., forehand. It would be much easier to
stimuli to be screened to find the triggering one increases RT recognize which ball is which if they are quite distinct in their
and whether this increase deteriorates performance but enhances flight, i.e., if they would land quite far from the court lines or
learning and transfer analogically to the high CI effect. one from another, either in or out of the court. However, the
The question about the relationship between similarity of the more similar they would be, i.e., they would land closer to the
stimuli to be screened and RT has a practical implication as well. lines or just outside the lines and closer one to another, we could
E.g., one could think about training procedures or a competition assume that perceiving the important pattern of the flying ball

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 8 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

could take more time and as a result would increase RT. The both processes, INT and SEQ befall during RT (see Figure 7).
practice itself, with the balls landing very close one to another However, INT takes much longer than SEQ, therefore, RT in
could be more demanding and difficult compared to the practice choice reaction task is longer than in simple reaction task. This
with balls landing quite far. A trainer would therefore consider effect was confirmed in subsequent studies (for references see:
that such practice may increase RT and as a result decrease and Khan et al., 2010). The findings by Klapp have an important
reduce the available time for movement performance. Would a practical implication too. Given that in simple reaction tasks
player have enough time to perform an efficient and technically the programming stage, at least partially, can be initiated prior
correct movement? As van Rossum noted (Van Rossum, 1990) to the stimulus presence, the RT will be shorter. In tasks like,
when “a movement of longer duration is executed, the possibility e.g., ball hitting in baseball, where there is limited time for
exists to adapt the movement in the course of its execution” information processing and movement, one could manipulate
(p. 391). Limiting time for movement execution may affect learning conditions to facilitate either movement performance
its outcome as there is no time for parameters adjustment in or information processing. If an individual has a problem with
response to environmental requirements. Although we assume movement, then the learning could be organized in a constant
that in constant conditions there is no need for parameters manner. The response programming stage in such a case, could
adjustment, we have to also consider that there is always such a start before the ball is thrown, decreasing RT and as a result
need due to the trial-to-trial variability. increasing the available time for movement performance. And
Related finding was reported by Czyż et al. (2019) in a paper vice versa, if we would like to improve information processing,
on specificity of practice. Movement, free throw in basketball, we could organize the learning in variable conditions, preferably
practiced in constant conditions had an overall shorter duration utilizing choice reaction tasks.
at the end of the practice sessions than the same movement but
practiced in variable practice. Participants in their study practice
free shots in variable (5 or 7 different distances) or constant (one Information Processing in Variable
distance) conditions. Variability concept in their study was drawn Practice Conditions
from the schema theory, i.e., movement variations belonged to Even more complicated situation is in variable conditions
the same class of movement (the same skill) and were thought to practice. Generally, there are more “stimulus-response” pairs. i.e.,
be operated and executed by the same GMP. Unfortunately, the an individual has to recognize an appropriate stimulus and pair
authors did not differentiate the reaction and movement time, it with a corresponding response (see Figure 8). However, this
so we cannot not say whether the longer response time was due is not specifically the only situation a variable practice can be
to the longer information processing (RT) and what stage was organized in.
accountable for it. It is also probable that the longer response time Variable practice can also consist of simple reaction tasks,
was due to the closed-loop feedback responsible for movement like the ones presented in Figures 5, 6, 8, however, these tasks
adjustment in a different parameter setting required at different can change from trial to trial producing different movements
distances. As Khan and colleagues stated “Movement time does in response to different stimuli. This problem is directly related
not vary with response complexity in a straightforward manner, to practice scheduling. It seems that variability of practice has
and understanding the factors that influence this relationship has to be inherently considered in practice scheduling. The variable
remained a challenge for researchers interested in the processes practice may be organized in the following ways:
associated with movement preparation and execution” (Khan
1. it can consist of simple reaction tasks or discrimination tasks
et al., 2010) (p. 97).
in a blocked order;
Complexity of a response affects RT as originally observed
2. it can consist of simple reaction tasks or discrimination tasks
by Henry and Rogers (1960). Another important aspect of this
in a random order.
finding was discovered by Klapp (1995, 2003) in experiments
3. it can consist of choice reaction tasks organized in a
utilizing Morse code responses, i.e., in cognitive-motor task.
blocked order;
Klapp noted that the RT increased in a simple reaction task
4. it can consist of choice reaction tasks organized in
when the number of elements to be coded increased. On the
random order;
other hand, in the choice reaction time task, the RT increased
5. It can be a mixture of any of the above.
when the duration of sequences was longer. Klapp proposed that
within the response programming stage there are two distinct In the first two schedules, information processing could be
processes. The first, called INT, is responsible for programming similar to the information processing in constant conditions. In
internal features of individual elements (e.g., its duration). An this case, as long as the same task is performed and practiced,
analogy to parameter assignment in Schmidt’s schema theory is similar to constant conditions, mechanisms apply. The only
here justified. The second process, called SEQ, is responsible for difference and perturbation could be observed while switching
scanning the time frames of sequences, i.e., for localizing the from one task to the other. There is no reason to assume that
initial starting points of each sequence. Klapp concluded that the stimulus identification stage in variable conditions takes
in simple reaction tasks, INT occurs prior to the programming longer than in the constant practice if the number of stimuli
stage. On the other hand, preprogramming is not possible in to be recognized is the same. Although, this statement needs
the choice reaction time tasks as an individual has to “decide” empirical support. Additionally, in random order, a bigger
which response to choose and eventually program it. Hence, load on attention could be observed as an individual would

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 9 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 7 | Information processing with two distinct processes within the response programming stage proposed by Klapp (1995, 2003): INT and SEQ. INT is
responsible for programming internal features of individual elements while SEQ for scanning of an abstract initiation time of a chunk without reference to the content.
INT in simple reaction time tasks (A) can start before a stimulus is present—response can be preprogrammed. In choice reaction time tasks (B), preprogramming is
not possible—therefore INT increases the overall RT. In simple reaction time tasks no response selection stage occurs.

FIGURE 8 | Information processing in choice reaction task under variable practice conditions in a parallel order. An individual exposed to four stimuli (A, B, C, and
D–solid lines) can trigger the corresponding responses (A’, B’, C’, and D’–dashed arrows). The B’ response is chosen and processed further through the programming
stage.

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 10 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

have to switch from one program to the other (interference of contextual interference by Brady (2004) shows that the
effect). Increased attention demand in a random schedule may effect size for contextual interference in applied studies was
be associated with planning an upcoming response–movement small (Cohen’s d = 0.19). On the other hand, there are no
(Wright et al., 2016). The random practice is also more effortful studies explaining how practicing in constant conditions would
information processing (Chua et al., 2019). It may be attributed affect both RT and decision-making process. This problem was
to the changes of external focus (changes in the task goal). i.e., broached by Broadbent et al. (2019), however it has not been
the external focus frequently changes in random practice (Chua broadly addressed yet.
et al., 2019). Another problem related to practice variability and
Information processing could be more complicated when information processing is that there is inconclusive support
practice would involve a choice reaction task (situations 3–5). for enhanced learning and transfer in timing tasks following
The RT will be increased due to the increased response selection variable practice as predicted by Schmidt’s schema theory (Van
duration (Hick, 1952; Hyman, 1953; Seibel, 1962, 1963; Schmidt Rossum, 1987, 1990). Perhaps it is associated with the motor
et al., 2018). Additionally, unlike in constant practice conditions tasks used in studies on variability of practice. Kerr noted (Kerr,
utilizing simple or discrimination RT tasks, INT process within 1982) that in the research on variability of practice hypothesis,
the response programming stage (Klapp, 1995, 2003) cannot start the most used tasks were closed skills, with fixed environments
before a stimulus is presented. The INT process will occur within with some intertrial variability. As a result, Kerr argued that
the RT, increasing its duration. individuals were focusing more on movement performance than
Apparently, the best documented relationship between RT on decision making, i.e., participants focused more on the type
and variable practice conditions is the one based on the of movement one has to make to achieve a goal. As it was already
contextual interference effect. Unfortunately, we lack research on discussed, in simple reactions tasks, i.e., based on closed skills,
RT and variability of practice from the schema theory perspective the response programming stage can start well ahead of stimulus
in general. As Broadbent et al. (2019) stated “Those examining presentation. Considering Klapp’s findings (Klapp, 1995, 2003),
the training of anticipation and decision making have generally one could hypothesize that the most conspicuous differences
not addressed the structure of practice” (p. 290). They emphasized between information processing in constant practice conditions
that the majority of studies focused on the randomization effect, and variable practice conditions will be when comparing simple
i.e., contextual interference effect, rather than on variability of or discrimination reaction tasks in constant practice and choice
practice from the Schmidt’s schema theory perspective. And reaction time tasks in variable practice conditions. The difference
yet, the number of these studies is quite limited. For example, between the RT in these tasks would be due to the present
in two studies, Broadbent et al. (2015, 2017) focused on CI response selection and increased response programming stages.
effect and decision making process. In both studies, participants From a pragmatic point of view, practitioners could think
decreased decision time in transfer tasks following random about the consequences of practice conditions manipulation on
practice. These studies generally support previous findings on information processing. Firstly, they can use different reaction
information processing and confirm CI effect as described by time tasks. Simple and discrimination reaction tasks would
Battig (1966, 1972). However, these do not say much about the decrease RT, since there will be no response selection stage and
mechanisms of improvement. the response programming stage can start before a stimulus is
On the other hand, there is “a switch cost” in reaction time presented. It can be assumed that this type of practice would
(RT) and error rates while task switching (Kiesel et al., 2010). facilitate response programming and movement performance as
Delayed responses noticed in task switching procedures are attention capacity could be used mostly to execute and govern
probably caused by higher working memory load or executive movement. Secondly, when the bigger emphasis has to be put on
control processes. However, there is no conclusive evidence attention load and bigger cognitive effort, then training should
on the latter one (Kiesel et al., 2010) and there is no direct consist of choice reaction tasks. Given there is a widespread
linkage between these two approaches (contextual interference belief that the more cognitively demanding practice is better
and task switching). for learning (Vickers et al., 2004; Vickers, 2007), some trainers,
coaches would like to increase cognitive effort to enhance
Information Processing in Variable and retention and transfer. In their practice, they could include choice
Constant Practice–Practical Implications reaction tasks in random order since the bigger attention load
Although there is still a gap in research on variability and is noticed in practice scheduled this way. Hence, coaches could
specificity of practice and information processing, we can progress the practice difficulty through including choice reaction
advance some theoretical and practical hypotheses. Most of time tasks in blocked (lower cognitive effort) or in random order
the motor learning books for either practitioners or academics (bigger cognitive effort).
suggest that implementing a higher degree of the variability, i.e.,
high contextual interference, in practice may enhance learning
and transfer (e.g., Boyce et al., 2006; Vickers, 2007; Coker, 2017;
Information Processing and Variability and
Magill and Anderson, 2017) also in terms of faster and more Specificity of Practice–Possible Future
appropriate reaction, i.e., in decision making. Not many though, Directions
mention that there are studies questioning the positive effect Apparently, the relationship between information processing
of high contextual interference on retention and transfer (for and practice variability and specificity is not well-recognized
review see: Brady, 2004; Lee, 2012). Moreover, the meta-analysis yet. The already conducted studies focused more on the higher

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 11 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

FIGURE 9 | Information processing in discrimination reaction task with one possible response and more than one stimulus triggering the response (movement).
Response can be initiated by either stimulus B or D.

degree of variability, i.e., on contextual interference, randomized Lastly, some of the terms, such as closed and open
either with variations of the same skills or different skills. skill (Poulton, 1957) may be directly associated with simple
Little is known about how practice in constant conditions and discrimination reaction tasks or choice reaction tasks
affects information processing and whether it enhances accordingly. Although these tasks do not run out all possible
learning and transfer. This problem should be addressed in tasks within these skills, information processing in closed skills
future studies. can be simple reaction tasks or discrimination tasks only. Choice
There is a lack of studies comparing information processing in reaction tasks cannot be closed skills, since the skill is performed
constant practice conditions including simple or discrimination in an unpredictable environment. As Poulton stated, closed
reaction tasks and variable practice conditions consisting of skills are named so “because the performance can be carried
choice reaction time. This comparison may have two-fold out successfully without reference to the environment” (Poulton,
benefits. Firstly, it would extend our knowledge about the 1957)(p.472). Moreover, in closed skill, there are no external
mechanisms underlying variability and specificity of practice. On requirements or an individual can make predictions about the
the other hand, it could help to support the original variability of possible environmental requirements.
practice hypothesis.
Another problem not well-addressed in the research, yet Limitations of the Review
relates to the number of stimuli triggering one possible response Given there are quite a few different terms used when referring
as presented in Figure 9. If there is only one possible response to variability of practice, perhaps a review using other key
and a few stimuli which could trigger it, how “screening” of the words would bring more results. There are already thousands
stimuli would affect information processing and RT? Moreover, of publications on information processing utilizing motor tasks.
there are no studies investigating how the similarity of stimuli Perhaps some of them deal with the variability of practice
an individual is exposed to affects information processing and problems, although not explicitly naming it so.
decision making. Although some analogies from studies on Another problem relates to the approaches and paradigms
classical and instrumental conditioning (Anderson, 2000) could used when interpreting and studying information processing.
be drawn, there is a need to determine what is the influence of For example, another theoretical approach is used to interpret
stimuli similarity on information processing. In conditioning, the the variability of practice benefits and disadvantages. The task
more similar stimuli are, the more difficult is to learn how to switching procedure, widely described in experimental and
differentiate (discriminate them). Future studies could therefore cognitive psychology, serves as a base for theorizing about
determine whether similarity of the triggering stimuli affect RT executive control mechanisms. Although quite conspicuous
and decision making. analogy to the random and blocked conditions in variable

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 12 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

practice, studies on task switching and repeated practice are not variable practice conditions. They can extent already existing
widely cited in the motor learning field and vice versa. It is knowledge in motor learning field.
surprising since in many task switching experiments motor tasks
are used and the paradigm used to define the characteristics of
body movements prior to the time of movement completion was AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
originally proposed for motor programming (Rosenbaum, 1980).
Therefore, a review with a deeper and more thorough emphasis The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
on task switching studies should be considered while discussing has approved it for publication.

REFERENCES Cohen, R. G., and Sternad, D. (2009). Variability in motor learning:

relocating, channeling, and reducing noise. Exp. Brain Res. 193, 69–83.
Abernethy, B., Farrow, D., Gorman, A., and Mann, D. L. (2012). “Anticipatory doi: 10.1007/s00221-008-1596-1
behaviour and expert performance,” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Coker, C. A. (2017). Motor Learning and Control for Practitioners, 3rd Edn.
Theory, and Practice, 2nd Edn, eds N. J. Hodges and A. M. Williams (Abingdon: Abingdon: Routledge.
Routledge), 287–305. Czyż, S. H., Zvonař, M., and Pretorius, E. (2019). The development of generalized
Anderson, D. I., Magill, R. A., Mayo, A. M., and Steel, K. A. (2020). “Enhancing motor program in constant and variable practice conditions. Front. Psychol.
motor skill acquisition with augmented feedback,” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: 10:2760. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02760
Research, Theory, and Practice, 3rd Edn, eds Nicola J. Hodges and A. M. Davids, K., Araújo, D., Button, C., and Renshaw, I. (2007). “Degenerate brains,
Williams (Abingdon: Routledge), 3–19. indeterminate behavior, and representative tasks: implications for experimental
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach, 2nd Edn. design in sport psychology research,” in Handbook of Sport Psychology, eds
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc. G. Tenenbaum and E. C. Eklund (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons,
Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of Information Theory to Psychology: A Summary Inc.), 224–244.
of Basic Concepts, Methods, and Results. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Davids, K., Button, C., and Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: A
Battig, W. F. (1966). “Facilitation and interference,” in Acquisition of Skill, ed E. A. Constraints-Led Approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bilodeau (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 215–244. Deutsch, J. A., and Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: some theoretical considerations.
Battig, W. F. (1972). “Intratask interference as a source of facilitation in transfer Psychol. Rev. 70, 80–90. doi: 10.1037/h0039515
and retention,” in Topics in Learning and Performance, eds R. F. Thompson and Deutsch, K. M., and Newell, K. M. (2004). Changes in the structure of children’s
J. F. Voss (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 131–159. isometric force variability with practice. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 88, 319–333.
Battig, W. F., and Shea, J. B. (1980). “Levels of processing of verbal materials: an doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.04.003
overview,” in Motor Learning and Biomechanical Factors in Sport, eds P. Klavora Dhawale, A. K., Smith, M. A., and Ölveczky, B. P. (2017). The role
and J. Flowers (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto), 24–33. of variability in motor learning. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 40, 479–498.
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford: doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031548
Pergamon Press. Donders, F. C. (1868). “On the speed of mental processes,” in 1969 Attention and
Bernstein, N. A. (1982). “Some emergent problems of the regulation of motor Performance II, ed W. G. Koster (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 412–431.
acts,” in Human Motor Actions: Bernstein Reassessed, ed H. T. A. Whiting Gibson, E. J., and Pick, A. D. (2000). An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning
(Amsterdam: North-Holland), 343–371. and Development–Eleanor Jack Gibson, Anne D. Pick, Professor at the Institute
Boyce, B. A., Coker, C. A., and Bunker, L. K. (2006). Implications for variability of Child Development Anne D Pick, Susan Linn Sage Professor of Psychology
of practice from pedagogy and motor learning perspectives: finding a common Eleanor J Gibson–Google Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ground. Quest 58, 330–343. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491886 Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Behav. Sci. 26,
Brady, F. (2004). Contextual Interference: a meta-analytic study. Percept. Mot. 308–309. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830260313
Skills 99, 116–126. doi: 10.2466/pms.99.1.116-126 Gibson, J. J. (2014). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hove:
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Psychology Press.
Broadbent, D. P., Causer, J., Ford, P. R., and Williams, A. M. (2015). Contextual Gibson, J. J., and Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: differentiation or
interference effect on perceptual-cognitive skills training. Med. Sci. Sports enrichment? Psychol. Rev. 62, 32–41. doi: 10.1037/h0048826
Exerc. 47, 1243–1250. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000530 Henry, F. M., and Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for
Broadbent, D. P., Causer, J., Ford, P. R., and Williams, A. M. (2019). complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor
“Training perceptual-cognitive expertise: how should practice be structured,” reaction. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Health Phys. Educ. Recreat. 31, 448–458.
in Anticipation and Decision Making in Sport, A. M. Williams and R. C. Jackson doi: 10.1080/10671188.1960.10762052
eds, (Abingdon: Routledge), 286–305. Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4, 11–26.
Broadbent, D. P., Causer, J., Williams, A. M., and Ford, P. R. (2017). The role doi: 10.1080/17470215208416600
of error processing in the contextual interference effect during the training Huys, R., Daffertshofer, A., and Beek, P. J. (2004). “The evolution of coordination
of perceptual-cognitive skills. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43, during skill acquisition: the dynamical systems approach,” in Skill Acquisition
1329–1342. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000375 in Sport: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1st Edn, eds A. M. Williams and N. J.
Causer, J., Janelle, C. M., Vickers, J. N., and Williams, A. M. (2012). “Perceptual Hodges (Abingdon: Routledge), 351–373.
expertise: what can be trained?” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory, Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J. Exp.
and Practice, 2nd Edn, eds Nicola J. Hodges and A. M. Williams (Abingdon: Psychol. 45, 188–196. doi: 10.1037/h0056940
Routledge), 307–324. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of psychology, whole no. 89. J.
Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cogn. Psychol. 4, Exp. Psychol. 49, 29–50.
55–81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and Human Performance. Akron, OH: Goodyear.
Chua, L. K., Dimapilis, M. K., Iwatsuki, T., Abdollahipour, R., Lewthwaite, Kerr, R. (1982). Practice variability: abstraction or interference. Percept. Mot. Skills
R., and Wulf, G. (2019). Practice variability promotes an external focus of 54, 219–224. doi: 10.2466/pms.1982.54.1.219
attention and enhances motor skill learning. Hum. Mov. Sci. 64, 307–319. Khan, M. A., Helsen, W. F., and Franks, I. M. (2010). “The preparation and control
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.02.015 of multiple–target aiming movements,” in Vision and Goal-Directed Movement:

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 13 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

Czyż Practice Variability and Information Processing

Neurobehavioral Perspectives, eds D. Elliott and M. A. Khan (Champaign, IL: Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H. N., and Frank, J. S. (1978). “Sources of inaccuracy in
Human Kinetics), 97–11. rapid movement,” in Information Processing in Motor Control and Learning, ed
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., G. E. Stelmach (Elsevier), 183–203. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-665960-3.50014-1
et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching-a review. Psychol. Bull. Scully, D. M., and Newell, K. M. (1985). Observational learning and the acquisition
136, 849–874. doi: 10.1037/a0019842 of motor skills: toward a visual perception perspective. J. Hum. Mov. Stud.
Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction 11, 169–186.
time: the role of practice. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 1015–1027. Seibel, R. (1962). Discrimination reaction time as a function of the number of
doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1015 stimulus-response pairs and the self-pacing adjustment of the subject. Psychol.
Klapp, S. T. (2003). Reaction time analysis of two types of motor preparation for Monogr. Gen. Appl. 76, 1–22. doi: 10.1037/h0093917
speech articulation: action as a sequence of chunks. J. Mot. Behav. 35, 135–150. Seibel, R. (1963). Discrimination reaction time for a 1,023-alternative task. J. Exp.
doi: 10.1080/00222890309602129 Psychol. 66, 215–226. doi: 10.1037/h0048914
Lee, T. D. (2012). “Contextual interference: generalizability and limitations,” in Shapiro, D. C., and Schmidt, R. A. (1982). “The schema theory: recent evidence and
Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory, and Practice, 2nd Edn, eds N.J. developmental implications,” in The Development of Movement Control and Co-
Hodges and A. M. Williams (Abingdon: Routledge), 79–93. ordination, eds J. A. S. KeIso and J. E. Clark (New York, NY: Wiley), 113–150.
Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., and Weeks, D. J. (1985). Influence of practice schedule Shea, J. B., and Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the
on testing schema theory predictions in adults. J. Mot. Behav. 17, 283–299. acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn.
doi: 10.1080/00222895.1985.10735350 Mem. 5, 179–187. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179
Lee, T. D., and Simon, D. (2004). “Contextual interference,” in Skill Acquisition Shea, J. B., and Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context effects in memory
in Sport: Research, Theory, and Practice, eds A. M. Williams and E. J. Hodges and learning movement information. Adv. Psychol. 12, 345–366.
(Abingdon: Routledge), 29–44. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61998-6
Lee, T. D., Swinnen, S. P., and Serrien, D. J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor Sherwood, D. E., and Lee, T. D. (2003). Schema theory: critical review and
learning. Quest 46, 328–344. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130 implications for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Res.
Magill, R. A., and Anderson, D. I. (2017). Motor Learning and Control: Concepts Q. Exerc. Sport 74, 376–382. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2003.10609107
and Applications, 11th Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: extensions of donders’
Magill, R. A., and Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual method. Acta Psychol. 30, 276–315. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Hum. Mov. Sci. 9, 241–289. Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses.
doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X J. Exp. Psychol. 14, 1–36. doi: 10.1037/h0073262
Moxley, S. E. (1979). Schema: the variability of practice hypothesis. J. Mot. Behav. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1987). Motor Development and Practice: The Variability of
11, 65–70. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1979.10735173 Practice Hypothesis in Perspective. Amsterdam: Free University Press.
Neumann, O. (1996). “Chapter 10 Theories of attention,” in Handbook of Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1990). Schmidt’s schema theory: the empirical base of the
Perception and Action, Vol. 3, eds O. Neumann and A. F. Sanders (Cambridge, variability of practice hypothesis. a critical analysis. Hum. Mov. Sci. 9, 387–435.
MA: Academic Press), 389–446. doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(90)90010-B
Newell, K. M. (1985). “Coordination, control, and skil,” in Differing Perspectives in Vickers, J. N. (2007). Percpetion, Cognition, and Decision Training: The Quiet Eye
Motor Learning, Memory, and Control, eds D. Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, and I. in the Action. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
M. Franks (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 295–317. Vickers, J. N., Reeves, M.-A., Chambers, K. L., Martell, S., Reeves, M.-A.,
Newell, K. M. (1986). “Constraints on the development of coordination,” in Motor Chambers, K. L., et al. (2004). “Decision training: cognitive strategies for
Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control, eds M. G. Wade enhancing motor performance,” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory,
and H. T. A. Whiting (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff), 341–360. and Practice, 1st Edn, eds A. M. Williams and N. J. Hodges (Abingdon:
Newell, K. M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42:237. Routledge), 127–144.
doi: 10.1146/[Link].42.020191.001241 Welford, A. T. (1952). The Psychological refractory period and the timing of
North, J. S., and Williams, A. M. (2019). “Familiarity detection and pattern high-speed performance–a review and a theory. Br. J. Psychol. 43, 2–19.
perception,” in Anticipation and Decision Making in Sport, eds A. M. Williams doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x
and R. C. Jackson (Abingdon: Routledge), 25–42. Williams, A. M. (2020). “Perceptual-cognitive expertise and simulation-based
Pizlo, Z. (2008). 3D Shape: Its Unique Place in Visual Perception. Cambridge, MA: training in sport,” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory, and Practice,
MIT Press. 3rd Edn, eds N. J. Hodges and A. M. Williams (Abingdon: Routledge), 237–254.
Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Williams, A. M., and Jackson, R. C. (2019). Anticipation and Decision Making in
Poulton, E. E. (1957). On prediction in skilled movements. Psychol. Bull. 54, Sport. Abingdon: Routledge.
467–478. doi: 10.1037/h0045515 Wright, D., Verwey, W., Buchanen, J., Chen, J., Rhee, J., and Immink, M.
Proctor, R. W., and Dutta, A. (1995). Skill Acquisition and Human Performance. (2016). Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning. Psychon.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: specification Bull. Rev. 23, 1–21. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0887-3
of arm, direction, and extent. J. Exp. Psycho. Gen. 109, 444–474. Wright, D. L., and Kim, T. (2020). “Contextual interference: new findings, insights,
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.109.4.444 and implications for skill acquisitio,” in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research,
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol. Theory, and Practice, 3rd Edn, eds Nicola J. Hodges and A. M. Williams
Rev. 82, 225–260. doi: 10.1037/h0076770 (Abingdon: Routledge), 99–118.
Schmidt, R. A. (1985). The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 56, 188–200. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1985.10608457 Conflict of Interest: The author declares that the research was conducted in the
Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: reflections absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as
and implications for a new theory. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 74, 366–375. a potential conflict of interest.
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2003.10609106
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., and Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Copyright © 2021 Czyż. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
Motor Control and Learning: A behavioral emphasis, 6th Edn. Champaign, IL: of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
Human Kinetics. reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the
Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H., Hawkins, B., Frank, J. S., and Quinn, J. T. (1979). copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol. is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
Rev. 86, 415–451. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.415 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | [Link] 14 February 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 639131

View publication stats