24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Implicit motor learning is considered to be particularly effective for learning sports-related motor skills. It should foster movement automaticity and thereby facilitate performance in multitasking and high-pressure environments. To scrutinize this hypothesis, we systematically reviewed all studies that compared the degree of automatization achieved (as indicated by dual-task performance) after implicit compared to explicit interventions for sports-related motor tasks.

          Methods

          For this systematic review (CRD42016038249) conventional (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Web of Science) and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers independently screened reports, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. Implicit interventions of interest were analogy-, errorless-, dual-task-, and external focus learning. Data analysis involved descriptive synthesis of group comparisons on absolute motor dual-task (DT) performance, and motor DT performance relative to single-task motor performance (motor DTCs).

          Results

          Of the 4125 reports identified, we included 25 controlled trials that described 39 implicit-explicit group comparisons. Risk of bias was unclear across trials. Most comparisons did not show group differences. Some comparisons showed superior absolute motor DT performance (N = 2), superior motor DTCs (N = 4), or both (N = 3) for the implicit compared to the explicit group. The explicit group showed superior absolute motor DT performance in two comparisons.

          Conclusions

          Most comparisons did not show group differences in automaticity. The remaining comparisons leaned more toward a greater degree of movement automaticity after implicit learning than explicit learning. However, due to an overall unclear risk of bias the strength of the evidence is level 3. Motor learning-specific guidelines for design and especially reporting are warranted to further strengthen the evidence and facilitate low-risk-of-bias trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Acquisition of cognitive skill.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus.

            The present experiment was designed to test the predictions of the constrained-action hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that when performers utilize an internal focus of attention (focus on their movements) they may actually constrain or interfere with automatic control processes that would normally regulate the movement, whereas an external focus of attention (focus on the movement effect) allows the motor system to more naturally self-organize. To test this hypothesis, a dynamic balance task (stabilometer) was used with participants instructed to adopt either an internal or external focus of attention. Consistent with earlier experiments, the external focus group produced generally smaller balance errors than did the internal focus group and responded at a higher frequency indicating higher confluence between voluntary and reflexive mechanisms. In addition, probe reaction times (RTs) were taken as a measure of the attention demands required under the two attentional focus conditions. Consistent with the hypothesis, the external focus participants demonstrated lower probe RTs than did the internal focus participants, indicating a higher degree of automaticity and less conscious interference in the control processes associated with the balance task.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                5 September 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 9
                : e0203591
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Research & Development, Heliomare Rehabilitation Centre, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands
                [2 ] Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Institute of Brain and Behaviour Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ] Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ] Research Unit of General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
                [5 ] Research Centre for Exercise, School and Sport, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands
                Universidad de Granada, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1481-3016
                Article
                PONE-D-17-38752
                10.1371/journal.pone.0203591
                6124806
                30183763
                4ad49e04-2a81-4dfa-b946-2a01a5791bc0
                © 2018 Kal et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 31 October 2017
                : 23 August 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 25
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Recreation
                Sports
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Sports Science
                Sports
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Human Performance
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article