Ramesh Kaipa1. 1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla., USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have investigated the influence of principles of motor learning (PMLs) on speech-motor learning. However, the interactive effect of different PMLs on speech-motor learning remains unknown. PURPOSE: This study is aimed at investigating the interaction of 2 PMLs, that is, practice variability and task complexity and their influence on speech-motor learning. METHOD:Forty healthy individuals (aged 18-30 years) were randomly and equally allocated to 2 groups where they had to either practice a simple (simple group) or a complex phrase (complex group). Two levels of practice variability (constant and variable) were considered in training participants in simple and complex groups. Participants practiced 50 practice trials of either complex or simple phrase during the first 2 days. At the end of training on each day, participants produced 10 trials of the phrase they practiced without feedback. On the third day, participants returned for a delayed retention test. The participant utterances on all the 3 days were recorded for later analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed that there was no major effect of practice condition, and there was no interaction of task complexity and practice condition. However, there was an interaction between data collection points and complexity. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that irrespective of the complexity of the to-be-learned speech task, there is no preponderance of variable over constant practice, which contradicts the findings of the non-speech-motor learning literature.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have investigated the influence of principles of motor learning (PMLs) on speech-motor learning. However, the interactive effect of different PMLs on speech-motor learning remains unknown. PURPOSE: This study is aimed at investigating the interaction of 2 PMLs, that is, practice variability and task complexity and their influence on speech-motor learning. METHOD: Forty healthy individuals (aged 18-30 years) were randomly and equally allocated to 2 groups where they had to either practice a simple (simple group) or a complex phrase (complex group). Two levels of practice variability (constant and variable) were considered in training participants in simple and complex groups. Participants practiced 50 practice trials of either complex or simple phrase during the first 2 days. At the end of training on each day, participants produced 10 trials of the phrase they practiced without feedback. On the third day, participants returned for a delayed retention test. The participant utterances on all the 3 days were recorded for later analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed that there was no major effect of practice condition, and there was no interaction of task complexity and practice condition. However, there was an interaction between data collection points and complexity. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that irrespective of the complexity of the to-be-learned speech task, there is no preponderance of variable over constant practice, which contradicts the findings of the non-speech-motor learning literature.
Entities:
Keywords:
Practice variability; Speech-motor learning; Task complexity
Authors: R Kawashima; N Tajima; H Yoshida; K Okita; T Sasaki; T Schormann; A Ogawa; H Fukuda; K Zilles Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Edwin Maas; Donald A Robin; Shannon N Austermann Hula; Skott E Freedman; Gabriele Wulf; Kirrie J Ballard; Richard A Schmidt Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Shannon N Austermann Hula; Donald A Robin; Edwin Maas; Kirrie J Ballard; Richard A Schmidt Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2008-08-26 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Phil Weir-Mayta; Kristie A Spencer; Steven M Bierer; Ayoub Daliri; Peter Ondish; Ashley France; Erika Hutchison; Caitlin Sears Journal: Int J Aging Res Date: 2019
Authors: Kaila L Stipancic; Yi-Ling Kuo; Amanda Miller; Hayden M Ventresca; Dagmar Sternad; Teresa J Kimberley; Jordan R Green Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 1.972