PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2010 | 25 | 5-15
Article title

Dual-task Practice of Temporally Structured Movement Sequences Augments Integrated Task Processing, but not Automatization

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
After initial learning, a one-finger key stroke sequence, defined by a specific relative timing pattern (temporal structure) and absolute total movement time (temporal parameter), was practiced (with KR provided) either under dual-task conditions (experimental group), or under single-task conditions (control group). During dual-task practice, the key stroke sequence (i.e., the primary-task) was always executed in parallel to one of two cognitively demanding secondary tasks (subtracting numbers, or sorting marbles). Secondary tasks were alternated every 20 practice trials. Before (Pre-test) and after practice (Post-test), performance in each group was assessed under single-task and under dual-task conditions (no KR during tests). From Pre- to Post-test, primary-task performance in both groups significantly increased (relative timing in particular). Also, after practice dual-task costs found during Pre-test in both groups were still prevalent in the control group, but completely vanished in the experimental group with respect to those task combinations that were practiced before. However, when a new secondary task (repeating letters) was introduced, dual-task costs fully reappeared in the experimental group with respect to relative timing of the key stroke sequence. These results contradict the notion of readily acquiring automatic control in the course of dual-task practice by "Structural Displacement" (Blischke & Reiter, 2002), but they are well in line with the concept of developing cognitive strategies for "Integrated Task Processing" (Manzey, 1993). Thus, impact of dual-task practice on motor sequence production may be different from that on motor parameter control. In this context, implications of recent findings from neuropsychology on cortical systems engaged in the pursuit of concurrent behavioural goals (cf. Charron & Koechlin, 2010) are discussed.
Publisher
Year
Volume
25
Pages
5-15
Physical description
Dates
published
30 - 9 - 2010
online
9 - 10 - 2010
References
  • Blischke K. Automation of voluntary movements: Old and recent findings from dual-task analysis. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2000. 4 (Supplement): 39-55
  • Blischke K. Automatisierung einer großmotorischen Kalibrierungsaufgabe durch Prozeduralisierung [Automatization of a gross-motor calibration task by proceduralization]. psychologie und sport, 2001. 8: 19-38
  • Blischke K. & Reiter C. Bewegungsautomatisierung durch Doppeltätigkeits-Üben [Movement-automatization by dual-task practice]. Spectrum der Sportwissenschaften, 2002. 14: 8-29
  • Blischke K, Zehren B, Utter T, & Brückner S. Doppeltätigkeits-Übung zeitstrukturierter Finger-Bewegungsfolgen [Dual-task practice of temporally structured finger movement sequences]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, (in press)
  • Charron S & Koechlin E. Divided representation of concurrent goals in the human frontal lobes. Science, 2010. 328: 360-363[WoS]
  • Doyon J, Bellec P, Amsel R, Penhune, V., Monchi, O., Carrier, J., Lehéricy, S., & Benali, H. Contributions of the basal ganglia and functionally related brain structures to motor learning. Behav Brain Res, 2009. 199: 61-75[WoS]
  • Heuer H. Motor learning as a process of structural constriction and displacement. In W. Prinz & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 295-305), 1984. Berlin: Springer
  • Heuer H. Models for response-response compatibility: The effects of the relation between responses in a choice task. Acta Psychol, 1995. 90: 315-332
  • Keele SW, Ivry R, Mayr U, Hazeltine E & Heuer H. The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychol Rev, 2003. 110 (2): 316-339
  • Koch I. The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychol Res-Psychol Fo, 2009. 73: 417-424[WoS]
  • Manzey D. Determinanten der Aufgabeninterferenz bei Doppeltätigkeiten und ressourcentheoretische Modellvorstellungen in der Kognitiven Psychologie [Determinants of task interference in dual-task activities and resource-theoretical model conceptions in cognitive psychology], 1988. Köln: Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DFVLR)
  • Manzey D. Doppelaufgabeninterferenz: Neue theoretische und methodische Perspektiven für ein altes Paradigma [Dual-task interference: New theoretical and methodological perspectives on an old paradigm]. In R. Daugs & K. Blischke (Eds.), Aufmerksamkeit und Automatisierung in der Sportmotorik (pp. 79-96), 1993. Sankt Augustin: Academia.
  • Meyer DE & Kieras DE. A computational theory of executive processes and multiple-task performance. Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychol Rev, 1997. 104: 3-65
  • Müller H & Blischke K. Motorisches Lernen [Motor learning]. In B. Strauß & W. Schlicht (Hrsg.), Grundlagen der Sportpsychologie (pp. 159-228), 2009. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe
  • Pashler H & Johnston JC. Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189), 1998. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
  • Wickens C D Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.). Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102), 1984. New York: Academic Press.
  • Wickens CD Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum Factors, 2008. 50 (3): 449-455[Crossref][WoS]
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_v10078-010-0026-1
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.