-
Something wrong with this record ?
The effect of contextual interference on transfer in motor learning - a systematic review and meta-analysis
SH. Czyż, AM. Wójcik, P. Solarská
Status not-indexed Language English Country Switzerland
Document type Journal Article, Systematic Review
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2010
Free Medical Journals
from 2010
PubMed Central
from 2010
Europe PubMed Central
from 2010
Open Access Digital Library
from 2010-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2010-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2010
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
Since the initial study on contextual interference (CI) in 1966, research has explored how practice schedules impact retention and transfer. Apart from support from scientists and practitioners, the CI effect has also faced skepticism. Therefore, we aimed to review the existing literature on the CI effect and determine how it affects transfer in laboratory and applied settings and in different age groups. We found 1,287 articles in the following databases: Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, supplemented by the Google Scholar search engine and manual search. Of 300 fully screened articles, 42 studies were included in the systematic review and 34 in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). The overall CI effect on transfer in motor learning was medium (SMD = 0.55), favoring random practice. Random practice was favored in the laboratory and applied settings. However, in laboratory studies, the medium effect size was statistically significant (SMD = 0.75), whereas, in applied studies, the effect size was small and statistically non-significant (SMD = 0.34). Age group analysis turned out to be significant only in adults and older adults. In both, the random practice was favored. In adults, the effect was medium (SMD = 0.54), whereas in older adults was large (SMD = 1.28). In young participants, the effect size was negligible (SMD = 0.12). Systematic review registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42021228267.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24018028
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241016081939.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241008e20240814sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1377122 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39205981
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Czyż, Stanisław H $u Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland $u Faculty of Sport Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia $u Physical Activity, Sport and Recreation (PhASRec), Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- 245 14
- $a The effect of contextual interference on transfer in motor learning - a systematic review and meta-analysis / $c SH. Czyż, AM. Wójcik, P. Solarská
- 520 9_
- $a Since the initial study on contextual interference (CI) in 1966, research has explored how practice schedules impact retention and transfer. Apart from support from scientists and practitioners, the CI effect has also faced skepticism. Therefore, we aimed to review the existing literature on the CI effect and determine how it affects transfer in laboratory and applied settings and in different age groups. We found 1,287 articles in the following databases: Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, supplemented by the Google Scholar search engine and manual search. Of 300 fully screened articles, 42 studies were included in the systematic review and 34 in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). The overall CI effect on transfer in motor learning was medium (SMD = 0.55), favoring random practice. Random practice was favored in the laboratory and applied settings. However, in laboratory studies, the medium effect size was statistically significant (SMD = 0.75), whereas, in applied studies, the effect size was small and statistically non-significant (SMD = 0.34). Age group analysis turned out to be significant only in adults and older adults. In both, the random practice was favored. In adults, the effect was medium (SMD = 0.54), whereas in older adults was large (SMD = 1.28). In young participants, the effect size was negligible (SMD = 0.12). Systematic review registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42021228267.
- 590 __
- $a NEINDEXOVÁNO
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
- 700 1_
- $a Wójcik, Aleksandra M $u Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland
- 700 1_
- $a Solarská, Petra $u Faculty of Sport Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
- 773 0_
- $w MED00174603 $t Frontiers in psychology $x 1664-1078 $g Roč. 15 (20240814), s. 1377122
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39205981 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241008 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241016081934 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2196439 $s 1229979
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 15 $c - $d 1377122 $e 20240814 $i 1664-1078 $m Frontiers in psychology $n Front Psychol $x MED00174603
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20241008