J. Cogn. Neurosci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cross, E. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grafton, S. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cross, E. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grafton, S. T.
(Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007;19:1854-1871.)
© 2007 The MIT Press

Neural Substrates of Contextual Interference during Motor Learning Support a Model of Active Preparation

Emily S. Cross, Paul J. Schmitt and Scott T. Grafton

Dartmouth College

Reprint requests should be sent to Scott T. Grafton, Department of Psychology, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA93106, or via e-mail: grafton{at}psych.ucsb.edu.

When individuals acquire new skills, initial performance is typically better and tasks are judged to be easier when the tasks are segregated and practiced by block, compared to when different tasks are randomly intermixed in practice. However, subsequent skill retention is better for a randomly practiced group, an effect known as contextual interference (CI). The present study examined the neural substrates of CI using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Individuals learned a set of three 4-element sequences with the left hand according to a block or random practice schedule. Behavioral retest for skill retention confirmed the presence of a typical CI effect with the random group outperforming the block group. Using a go/no-go fMRI paradigm, sequence preparation during the premovement study period was separated from movement execution. Imaging data for the two groups were compared for the first 1/3 and final 1/3 of training trials. Toward the end of training, behavioral performance between the two groups was similar, although the random group would later display a performance advantage on retention testing. During study time, the random group showed greater activity in sensorimotor and premotor regions compared to the block group. These areas are associated with motor preparation, sequencing, and response selection. This pattern of recruitment is consistent with the hypothesis that CI benefits in a sequencing task are due to improved capacity to actively prepare motor responses.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEURAL COMPUTATION J COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE MIT PRESS JOURNALS
Copyright © 2007 by The MIT Press.