Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Human Movement Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humov

Contextual interference effects on the acquisition

of skill and strength of the bench press
Marshall A. Naimo a,⇑, Michael C. Zourdos b, Jacob M. Wilson c, Jeong-Su Kim a,
Emery G. Ward a, David W. Eccles d, Lynn B. Panton a
a
Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
b
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
c
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, The University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
d
School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study was to investigate contextual interfer-
Available online 28 May 2013 ence effects on skill acquisition and strength gains during the
learning of the bench press movement. Twenty-four healthy, col-
psycINFO classifications: lege-aged males and females were stratified to control, high con-
2330
textual interference (HCI), and low contextual interference (LCI)
2340
groups. Treatment groups were provided with written and visual
2343
instruction on proper bench press form and practiced the bench
Keywords: press and dart throwing for four weeks. Within each session, LCI
High contextual interference performed all bench press sets before undertaking dart-throws.
Low contextual interference HCI undertook dart-throws immediately following each set of
Technique bench press. Control only did testing. Measurements, including
1RM one repetition maximum (1RM), checklist scores based on video
Resistance training
recordings of participants’ 1RM’s, and dart-throw test scores were
Practice
taken at pre-test, 1 week, 2 week, post-test, and retention test.
Results were consistent with the basic premise of the contextual
interference effect. LCI had significant improvements in percent
1RM and checklist scores during training, but were mostly absent
after training (post-test and retention test). HCI had significant
improvements in percent 1RM and checklist scores both during
and after training. Thus, HCI may augment strength and movement
skill on the bench press since proper technique is an important
component of resistance exercise movements.
Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Permanent address: 4249 Charing Cross Rd., Sarasota, FL 34241, USA. Tel./fax: +1 941 376 2043.
E-mail address: man03e@my.fsu.edu (M.A. Naimo).

0167-9457/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.02.002
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 473

1. Introduction

When looking at factors critical for overall performance and the positive effects of resistance exer-
cise training to occur, it can be argued that an often overlooked aspect is the learning of the technique,
or skill, of the various exercises performed. The components of multiple-joint exercises (e.g., bench
press, squat, deadlift) involve greater technique as well as highly sophisticated neural responses
(ACSM, 2009; Kraemer & Ratamess, 2004) in comparison to single-joint exercises (e.g., biceps curl,
leg extension, leg curl). Skill acquisition has been researched using different practice variables, includ-
ing the variability of practice and whether practice is randomized or blocked. The effectiveness of
these variables on learning is based upon the amount of contextual interference that is generated,
which refers to the amount of interference generated due to the context under which the skills are
being learned (Battig, 1979; Schmidt & Lee, 2005).
Jacoby (1978) suggested that in order to retain information, the learner had to go through
the entire learning process. Therefore, during practice, if the information of a task was stored in the
working memory after the first trial, information would not have been fully processed during the
second trial, which would inhibit learning. Building off this concept, the reconstruction hypothesis
(Lee & Magill, 1983; Schmidt & Lee, 2005) was proposed, based on the premise that ‘‘forgetting helps
remembering’’ (Cuddy & Jacoby, 1982). During low contextual interference (LCI) paradigms, the per-
son remembers the solution (i.e., action) from previous trials because the required information
needed to complete the given task is kept within the working memory, which causes little recon-
structive processing to occur. This promotes good performance during acquisition but does not ad-
vance the processing required for the facilitation of learning. On the other hand, high contextual
interference (HCI) paradigms lead to a short-term forgetfulness of the action of one task when a dif-
ferent task must be produced. As a result, the person must reconstruct the actions of the first task
when he or she has to perform it, which leads to deeper levels of reconstructive processing to occur.
This harms performance during acquisition trials but is more beneficial to learning. Previous studies
of contextual interference (Bortoli, Robazza, Durigon, & Carra, 1992; Boyce & Rey, 1990; Hall,
Domingues, & Cavazos, 1994; Landin, Hebert, & Fairweather, 1993; Smith & Davies, 1995; Smith,
2002; Ste-Marie, Clark, Findlay, & Latimer, 2004; Tsutsui, Lee, & Hodges, 1998; Wrisberg, 1991;
Wrisberg & Liu, 1991) have shown that HCI paradigms facilitate greater learning compared to LCI
paradigms. However, there has been no investigation of these effects in regards to the learning of
a resistance exercise training task. This is noteworthy because the amount of strength and total
force production that is necessary when performing a resistance exercise training movement such
as the bench press is very different from the force production necessary for other motor tasks. This
study could be applied to persons (such as a coach, trainer, or physical education instructor) who
need to teach an individual or a group how to perform the bench press in a relatively short amount
of time, by seeing if a practice model based on the principles of contextual interference is beneficial
for learning resistance exercise training tasks.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate contextual interference effects on move-
ment skill acquisition and strength gains during the learning of the bench press movement. Based
on previous literature on contextual interference, we hypothesized that LCI would lead to more skillful
movement during acquisition, but that HCI would lead to more skillful movement during retention. In
addition, we hypothesized that this skill acquisition would have a similar effect on strength gains dur-
ing and after acquisition.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Thirty untrained, college-aged males and females were initially recruited for this study. Two par-
ticipants were dropped because their pre-test one repetition maximums (1RM) were far outside nor-
mal values for our study population. Four other participants chose not to complete all parts of the
study protocol. Therefore, 24 participants, 15 males and nine females, completed the study.
474 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

Participants were recruited on the basis that they had little or no previous experience with the two
study tasks. These included performing the free weight bench press, which participants had per-
formed five times or less overall and none within the last three years. Participants with a small
amount of experience were included because it was very difficult to recruit enough participants
who were college aged and had never performed the bench press. However, all groups were balanced
in terms of the collective bench press experience so that one group did not have a significantly greater
amount of experience compared to the other group. The second task was throwing darts with the
nondominant arm; participants had no previous experience of this task. Participants signed an in-
formed consent prior to any participation, which was approved by the Florida State University Insti-
tutional Review Board.

2.2. Experimental design

Participants were stratified based on gender, body weight and one repetition maximum (1RM) of the
free weight bench press into one of three groups: Control, LCI or HCI. Participants in the treatment (LCI
and HCI) groups practiced the bench press and dart-throwing tasks over a four week training period. Dur-
ing their first visit, participants were acquainted with testing procedures and screened to ascertain that
they met the inclusion requirements. During the study, measurements for the bench press and dart-
throwing tasks were assessed during a pre-test, after one week and two weeks into training, during a
post-test (after four weeks of training), and during a retention test (nine days after the post-test).
Within each practice session, treatment groups performed four sets of the bench press task and sets
of dart-throws. For the resistance exercise training protocol, participants trained following the recom-
mendations of a meta-analysis by Rhea, Alvar, Burkett, and Ball (2003). Participants trained for
three sessions per week, and they performed four sets of the bench press per session. The meta-anal-
ysis also recommended a mean training intensity of 60% of 1RM strength for training. However, we
decided to have our participants train at slightly lower than 60% because the meta-analysis defined
untrained as simply someone who had less than one year of consistent training, but did not differen-
tiate between those who had previous experience with resistance training and those who were nov-
ices or had very little prior experience, such as the participants that were involved in this study.
During the first two weeks of training, the participants trained at 50% of their 1RM for 12 repetitions
per set. For the final two weeks of training, the participants trained at 55% of their 1RM for 10 repe-
titions per set. Since it has been documented that progression is a necessary component of a resistance
exercise training program (ACSM, 2009), participants progressed through their program by taking
their new 1RM collected during testing at each time point that was mentioned earlier and then using
it to recalculate the weight they were training at based on the percent 1RM before starting their next
week of training. Participants also completed four sets of four dart throws during each session by
throwing Halex Competition 1000 Steel Tip Darts (18 g) at WinchesterÒ rifle targets that were
1.73 m off the ground and from a distance of 2.37 m away from the target, with one dart being thrown
every 15 s after the researcher said the command ‘‘throw’’ for a total of 60 s being used for each set.
The two treatment groups differed in the order in which they performed their bench press and
dart-throwing sets (Fig. 1). Our study design was theoretically based on the reconstruction hypothe-
sis; when the bench press is being learned under the HCI condition, the parameters of the motor pro-
gram must be displaced in order to cause forgetfulness, which should be accomplished by performing
the dart throws between sets of the bench press, so that when the participants come back to the bench
press after completing their dart throws, they can reconstruct the motor program, which should facil-
itate greater learning and retention of the movement. For the dart throws, we had our participants
throw the darts with their nondominant arms, which substantially increased the difficulty and com-
plexity of the task. Because of this feature, the difficulty of this task was sufficient enough to take the
focus away from the bench press in between sets in the HCI group so that a contextual interference
effect could be observed.
The LCI group first performed four sets of the bench press task, with 90 s rest in between sets. Par-
ticipants stood up from the bench between sets. Participants then performed four sets of four dart-
throws, with each set taking 90 s to complete; 15 s were provided with each throw and there was
30 s rest between sets. The HCI group performed sets of the bench press and dart-throw tasks in a
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 475

Fig. 1. Experimental protocol for the treatment groups outlining the order in which they performed the bench press and dart-
throwing along with their rest intervals in between sets of each task. Participants in HCI were required to sit and read a
magazine for an extra 300 s post-training in order to equalize experimental contact time between groups.

variable practice schedule; that is, participants performed one set of the bench press task, then one set
of the dart-throw task, then one set of the bench press task, and so forth until all sets of both tasks
were completed. Time between bench press sets was also 90 s; 15 s was provided for each dart-throw
and the remaining 30 s was provided for the participant to move away from the dart-throwing area,
return to the bench press apparatus, and implement the appropriate steps involved in the setup lead-
ing up to the next set.
On the first training day of each week within the four week protocol, participants in the treatment
groups watched an instructional video demonstrating the steps involved in properly executing the bench
press movement. Following the video, participants in these groups read instructions on how to properly
perform the bench press movement, which corresponded to the steps in the video. Additionally, when-
ever they performed a 1RM test during the four week protocol (1 week and 2 week), they received feed-
back about their bench press form, based on their performance from their previous bench press 1RM test,
which was done one week after the test had been performed. The participants did not receive feedback on
their performance for the post-test measurement, prior to the retention test. The control group only per-
formed test measurements, without taking part in the resistance exercise training and dart-throwing
protocols for the four week training period. The control group did not receive visual or written instruc-
tions on proper bench press form, and did not receive any feedback on their 1RM testing.

2.3. Measurements

2.3.1. 1RM test

All tests followed the protocol of Shimano et al. (2006). To summarize, participants performed a
general warm-up on a cycle ergometer for five min, followed by a specific warm-up consisting of eight
to ten repetitions using a light weight (40% of 1RM), three to five repetitions using a moderate
weight (60% 1RM), and one to three repetitions using a heavy weight (80% of 1RM). After the
warm-up sets, participants were tested for 1RM strength, which was the maximum weight that could
be lifted one time (Sakamoto & Sinclair, 2006). After a successful lift, there was a 180 s rest period until
the next lift was attempted. The weight was increased on subsequent attempts until the participant
was unable to complete a full repetition. Verbal encouragement was given on all tests.

2.3.2. Movement component checklist

For all 1RM tests, participants were videotaped during the bench press movement for the specific
purpose of grading proper technique. In order to gauge the accuracy of each participant’s technique, a
movement component checklist with 13 different components of the bench press movement was uti-
476 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

lized (see Appendix 1 to view the checklist). The specific bench press movement taught to participants
in our study involved more steps and overall technical demands then a typical bench press performed
by a novice or recreational lifter without proper instruction. Typically, a novice will simply lie down on
the bench and lift the bar off the rack and perform the movement without a set criteria in mind. On the
contrary, someone attempting to properly demonstrate the technique being taught in our study would
try to follow 13 distinct and specific components of the movement. The bench press technique used by
our participants required the coordination of several different body parts that they were expected to
perform in the proper manner, starting with the setup before the lift through the racking of the weight
following the conclusion of the repetition. The technique taught is commonly used by professional
powerlifters in reputable organizations such as USA Powerlifting (USAPL), who spend years of training
in order to become proficient at it, as part of maximizing strength potential and decreasing the like-
lihood of injury. In regards to the dart throw, we had our participants throw the darts with their non-
dominant arms, which substantially increased the difficulty and complexity of the task.
The videos were blind reviewed by a research assistant who was a Certified Strength and Condition-
ing Specialist with six years of experience with expertise of the bench press movement. The reviewer
was responsible for grading all videos during the entire study. During the reviews, the assistant placed
a check next to each component of the movement that was performed correctly. The total number of
checks were counted up and the participant was given a raw score out of 13 points.

2.3.3. Dart-throwing performance

For the dart-throwing performance test, participants were given four dart-throwing attempts. All
attempts were performed with the nondominant arm, and the only instructions given to the partici-
pants were for them to aim for the bulls-eye on all their throws. Each throw was scored on a scale from
zero to six; zero was given if they hit the bulls-eye and six being the score if they completely missed
the target. Each participant’s scores were then used to calculate the constant error (CE) and variable
error (VE) statistical equations, given by Schmidt and Lee (2005). The CE measures the amount and
deviation relative to the target, which is called bias. It describes the error in relation to the target;
in other words, the person’s accuracy or ability to hit the instructed target, which in our study was
the bulls-eye. The VE measures the spread about the participant’s own average, so it takes into account
the variability in the movements; in other words, VE calculates the ability of the participant to con-
P
sistently hit the same area of the target. The CE equation was calculated using the formula CE = (xi -
P
 T)/n where meant ‘‘the sum of,’’ xi was the score on trial i, T was the target, and n was the number
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P P
of trials performed. The VE equation was given by the formula VE ¼ ðxi  MÞ2 =n, where , xi and
n were defined in the same way as for the CE equation, and M was the participant’s average movement
and was measured in the same units as the scores for the task.

2.3.4. Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using Statistica (version 8.0) software. Separate three group (control, LCI,
and HCI) x five time (pre-test, 1 week, 2 week, post-test, and retention test) repeated measures anal-
yses of variances (ANOVA) were conducted for differences in bench press 1RM, bench press movement
skill (checklist scores), and dart-throwing performance (CE and VE). A three  four [condition  time
(1 week, 2 week, post-test, and retention test] repeated ANOVA was also used to test for significance
for 1RM values, which were normalized to a percentage of their initial 1RM. A Tukey HSD post hoc test
was used to locate differences among groups if there was a main effect of time. Alpha was set at 0.05
for all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Participant characteristics and training data

Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences in age,
height, weight or initial 1RM strength among groups. Total volume of the bench press for participants
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 477

in the two treatment groups are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in total volume
for the bench press between the two treatment groups.

3.2. 1RM values

There were no differences in 1RM among the three groups at pre-test (baseline). Overall, there was a
significant time effect, F(8, 84) = 3.714, p < 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.26, for the 1RM strength
measurement. Strength increased significantly from pre-test to all other time points in all groups, with
no differences among groups (Table 3). However, there was an overall group effect for percent change in
1RM F(2, 21) = 4.58, p < 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.29, in which LCI (+20.3%) and HCI (+15.4%) had an
overall greater 1RM than control (+10.5%) but not relative to each other. There was an overall time effect
F(3, 63) = 27.19, p < 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.56, for percent change in 1RM, which increased from
1 week to 2 week, and 2 week compared to the post-test and retention test, but not from post-test to
retention test. An overall group by time effect was found F(6, 63) = 2.3, p < 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.19,
in which no significant changes occurred for percent change in any weeks in the control group (Fig. 2). For
LCI, there was a significant percent increase (p < 0.05) at post-test (+21.8%) relative to the percent change
at 1 week (+10.3%) and 2 week (+15.1%); however, at the retention test, there were no longer significant
differences compared with 2 week values (+20.3 vs. +15.1%) and was only different from 1 week (+20.3
vs. +10.3%). For HCI, there was a significant percent increase (p < 0.05) at the retention test (+15.4%) rel-
ative to the percent change at both 1 week (+6.2%) and 2 week (+8.8%).

Table 1
Participant characteristics (N = 24; mean ± SD).

Variable Control (n = 8) LCI (n = 8) HCI (n = 8)

Age (years) 20.6 ± 1.8 21.1 ± 2.4 20.0 ± 1.3
Height (cm) 170.1 ± 8.4 172.8 ± 8.4 168.1 ± 6.4
Weight (kg) 61.1 ± 10.1 65.0 ± 8.2 65.4 ± 7.6
Pre 1RM (kg) 42.7 ± 15.1 41.8 ± 12.0 42.1 ± 13.8

LCI = Low contextual interference.

HCI = High contextual interference.
1RM = One repetition maximum.

Table 2
Total volume of the bench press for the LCI and HCI groups (N = 16; mean ± SD).

Variable LCI (n = 8) HCI (n = 8)

1 Week Total Volume (kg) 1026 ± 286 1011 ± 328
2 Week Total Volume (kg) 1093 ± 329 1087 ± 315
3 Week Total Volume (kg) 1057 ± 291 1025 ± 324
4 Week Total Volume (kg) 1057 ± 291 1025 ± 324

LCI = Low contextual interference.

HCI = High contextual interference.

Table 3
Strength assessment over time as measured by the 1RM (N = 24; mean ± SD).

Time Control (n = 8) LCI (n = 8) HCI (n = 8)

Pre 42.7 ± 15.1 41.8 ± 12.0 42.1 ± 13.8
1 Week 45.2 ± 16.7a 46.1 ±13.5a 44.7 ± 13.4a
2 Week 46.4 ± 17.2a 48.1 ± 13.2a,b 45.8 ± 14.6a
Post 47.0 ± 15.9a 50.9 ± 13.5a,b,c 47.8 ± 13.8a,b,c
Retention 47.2 ± 15.8a 50.3 ± 14.3a,b,c 48.6 ± 13.6a,,b,,c
a
p < 0.05, significantly different from pre within group.
b
p < 0.05, significantly different from 1 Week within group.
c
p < 0.05, significantly different from 2 Week within group.
478 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

Fig. 2. Percent of pre-test 1RM increase at 1 week, 2 week, post, and retention. Values are expressed as means ± standard errors,
⁄
significantly different (p < 0.05) from 1 week within group, #significantly different (p < 0.05) from 2 week within group.

Fig. 3. Changes in movement component checklist scores from pre-test through retention. Values are expressed as
means ± standard errors, ⁄significantly different (p < 0.05) from control,  significantly different (p < 0.05) from pre within
group, àsignificantly different (p < 0.05) from 1 week within group, #significantly different (p < 0.05) from 2 week within group.

3.3. Movement component checklist scores

There were no significant differences among groups at pre-test values for movement checklist
scores (Fig. 3). There was a significant group by time effect, F(8, 84) = 3.011, p < 0.05, partial eta
squared = 0.22, for movement component checklist scores. Checklist scores, expressed as arbitrary
units (a.u.), were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the LCI group compared to the control group at
1 week (12 vs. 9 a.u.) and 2 week (12 vs. 8 a.u.). In the HCI group, checklist scores were also signifi-
cantly higher (p < 0.05) compared to the control group at 1 week (11 vs. 9 a.u.) and 2 week (12 vs.
8 a.u.); in addition, checklist scores were significantly higher (p < 0.05) at the post-test (13 vs.
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 479

9 a.u.) and retention test (12 vs. 9 a.u.) compared to control. There were no significant differences in
checklist scores between the LCI and HCI groups at any time point. For within group differences, in the
LCI group, compared to pre-test, there was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in checklist scores at
1 week (12 vs. 9 a.u.) and 2 week (12 vs. 9 a.u.); there were no significant differences in post-test
(11 vs. 9 a.u.) or retention test (11 vs. 9 a.u.) checklist scores compared to pre-test. In the HCI group,
there was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in checklist scores at 1 week (11 vs. 10 a.u.), 2 week (12 vs.
10 a.u.), post-test (13 vs. 10 a.u.), and retention test (12 vs. 10 a.u.) compared to pre-test. Additionally,
post-test and retention test checklist scores (13 and 12 a.u., respectively) were significantly higher
(p < 0.05) compared to 1 week and 2 week (11 and 12 a.u., respectively).

3.4. Dart-throwing performance test scores

No group by time effect was found for CE scores. There was also no time effect, although it ap-
proached significance F(4, 84) = 2.381, p = 0.06, partial eta squared = 0.10. There were no differences
in CE scores among groups. There was a significant decrease in CE scores from pre-test to 1 week,
pre-test to 2 week, and pre-test to post-test in all conditions. Scores were not significantly different
at retention test compared to pre-test in any of the experimental groups. For VE scores, there was
no group by time effect for VE scores. There was also no main time effect for VE scores and there were
no significant differences in VE scores among groups at any time points. No significant differences in
VE scores were found at any time points within each group.

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this was the first study that investigated the influences of contextual interfer-
ence effects on the acquisition of skill and strength for a resistance exercise task. The main findings
of this study were that the results were consistent with other contextual interference studies, in which
the HCI paradigm facilitated greater learning compared to the LCI paradigm. Moreover, there were also
greater improvements in strength with HCI as indicated by the percent 1RM data. For dart-throwing
CE and VE scores, we did not find any differences between treatment groups, nor between treatment
groups and the control. Elaborations will occur later in the discussion.

4.1. Movement component checklist scores

The results that have been presented regarding the checklist scores seems to show that the acquisi-
tion of skill of the bench press was only temporary in the LCI group, while in comparison the HCI group
had a higher degree of retention of the bench press movement. These results have implications in re-
gards to seeking methods of learning that will better teach individuals proper performance of resistance
exercise training tasks. For instance, this would benefit competitive powerlifters because technique is
an important aspect of performing well on strength tests; small errors in technique can make the dif-
ference between success and failure or disqualification during an attempt, and subsequently their over-
all performance at competitions. While the majority of the research has shown HCI to be superior to LCI
in learning, there are a few studies that have found no differences between learning conditions (Jones &
French, 2007; Meira & Tani, 2001; Moreno et al., 2003; Smith, Gregory, & Davies, 2003). In regards to our
findings, there are a few reasons that may help to explain the current results. Shea, Kohl, and Indermill
(1990) have indicated that the effects of contextual interference seen are proportional to the amount of
practice, as the more practice trials that are undertaken, the more likely the benefits of HCI are likely to
show up during retention. Baker, Wilson, and Carlyon (1994) indicated in a study examining periodiza-
tion effects of manipulating volume and intensity during resistance exercise training in trained male
athletes that more practice trials would allow for greater learning and coordination, which would seem
to explain why higher amounts of training volume would be a better approach for novice lifters. Perhaps
in our study, if we had our participants train for six weeks instead of four weeks, we could have seen
more of a contextual interference effect between LCI and HCI.
The degree of difficulty of a task has also been distinguished as a factor that can alter the degree of
learning from contextual interference (Smith et al., 2003). The difficulty of the task was given as a rea-
480 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

son to explain their results; they explained that small errors in trajectory while attempting a cart-
wheel could potentially result in large errors in foot placement during landing, along with the fact that
the skill required whole body coordination. Additionally, one of the requirements for participation in
this study were that participants have no previous experience performing gymnastics, which would
increase the difficulty in learning the task even more. Similarly, our experiment was done with novices
attempting a task that required whole body coordination, so the degree of difficulty of performing the
bench press would be high as well.
In addition, Smith et al. (2003) and Jones and French (2007) pointed out that the novices that were
involved in their studies may not have the sufficient skill level to benefit as much from high amounts
of contextual interference compared to intermediate or higher skilled individuals. For instance, Hall
et al. (1994) found significant learning effects in a HCI group compared to LCI in highly skilled collegiate
baseball players. Our study also used participants that had little or no previous experience performing
the bench press, so it is possible that the results were partially influenced by our participants’ skill levels.
Another potential reason for our results lies in the dissimilarity between the two tasks practiced,
the bench press and dart-throwing. The purpose of using the dart-throw as the secondary task in this
study was to use something that required movement and was considered a sporting skill, but at the
same time was not likely to cause fatigue and influence the performance of the bench press in any
way. When comparing the two movements, the bench press is more of a whole body movement
and can be considered a serial movement in nature, with the object being moved having a substantial
amount of weight to it. The dart-throw, in contrast, requires mainly the movement of the hand and
elbow extensors, is considered a discrete movement (has a distinguishable beginning and end), the ob-
ject being thrown is light in weight, and it also requires more precise movement and fine motor skills.
In a recent study by Boutin and Blandin (2010), the researchers investigated the effects of perform-
ing three movement times in a random or blocked format in a similar or dissimilar condition. The re-
sults of the retention test found that there was a contextual interference learning effect in the similar
condition. Conversely, there were no blocked-random differences in the dissimilar condition, suggest-
ing that task similarity is one factor that can determine the extent of the effects of contextual interfer-
ence on learning (Boutin & Blandin, 2010). Jones and French (2007) also explained their findings of no
blocked-random effects in part to being the result of the serve, forearm pass, and set in volleyball not
sharing a sufficient similarity to produce a contextual interference effect. Perhaps if we had not done
dart-throwing and instead performed some other resistance exercise training task with a light weight
and in a manner that would not cause excess fatigue to the point that their skill and strength on the
bench press would be compromised, then we may have seen more of an effect between LCI and HCI.
Despite there being no differences between LCI and HCI, there were still some interesting findings
in the movement component checklist scores. Compared to the control group, the LCI group had sig-
nificantly higher checklist scores only during training (1 week and 2 week), whereas the HCI group
had significantly higher scores both during and after training (1 week, 2 week, post-test, and retention
test). These data seem to suggest that both treatment groups, regardless of practice format, were able
to attain some skill acquisition as a result of practice. Moreover, LCI checklist scores were only signif-
icantly higher compared to pre-test values during training (1 week and 2 week), with all within group
differences absent at the post-test and retention test, while the HCI group showed a significant in-
crease in checklist scores over time throughout all tests conducted both during and after training.
What is intriguing about that line of evidence is that the findings seem to follow the basic premise
of each condition; LCI is known to be easier to perform during practice, but is less likely to show a
retention of the skills learned when tested after practice, whereas HCI is harder to perform during
practice, but is easier for the person to replicate the skills during a retention or transfer test.

4.2. 1RM strength measures

Our expectations were that the results for strength gains between treatment groups would be sim-
ilar to what would be seen in skill acquisition during and after training. There is a direct link between
proper technique and gains in maximal strength (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006). Without proper form,
the person will not be able to maximize the amount of weight he or she is able to lift, because when
performing at high intensities, small errors in movement can be the difference between a successful
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 481

lift and a failed attempt. Our hypothesis was supported by the percent 1RM data. We found within
group differences from the percent 1RM data that signified improvements in the HCI group and de-
clines in the LCI group at the retention test. While there was an overall group effect for percent change
in 1RM for LCI and HCI compared to control, there were no differences between LCI and HCI.
In regards to not finding significant differences between LCI and HCI, our findings may have been
influenced by variability in 1RM testing due to our experimental design. Because this was a study
based on learning among groups performing the bench press, we decided not to include a familiariza-
tion session before our participants became involved in the study. Numerous studies (Benton, Swan, &
Peterson, 2009; Blazevich & Gill, 2006; Levinger et al., 2009; Ploutz-Snyder & Giamis, 2001) have
emphasized that a familiarization before testing is highly recommended to improve the reliability
of maximal testing. Moreover, untrained individuals can mistakenly perceive a submaximal effort
for maximal effort because of a lack of experience with resistance exercise training (Kraemer,
Ratamess, Fry, & French, 2006). Prior research has shown that without a familiarization prior to
strength testing, there is a significant increase in strength between two consecutive strength tests
performed a few days apart (Levinger et al., 2009). Given these findings, it is realistic to say that having
no prior familiarization before testing at least partially influenced our results. In particular, the data
seems to indicate a potential underestimation of pre-test 1RM values for at least some of our participants.
Another reason that can be used to explain our 1RM values is the fact that we did a single baseline 1RM
test instead of multiple session testing. In fact, for untrained individuals, single-session testing is not ad-
vised because of the potential for large amounts of variation between trials (Benton et al., 2009). Benton
et al. (2009) evaluated the differences between multiple trials of 1RM testing in healthy, untrained wo-
men. The researchers found that a series of three 1RM tests was enough to obtain a consistent measure of
1RM strength on the chest press. Overall, a lack of sufficient test trials may not produce accurate mea-
sures of muscular strength (Benton et al., 2009), which was the case in the present study.
In addition to the potential variability due to not having multiple testing trials or familiarizations, a
study by Hubal and colleagues (2005) evaluated the variability in muscle size and strength and found
that women demonstrated greater variability in relative strength gains after training. Maximum
strength was assessed in this study using a single-joint exercise (preacher curl), which requires a re-
duced level of skill and technical movement, whereas our study had women performing the bench
press, which is a multi-joint exercise that requires more involvement of the neurological properties
of the muscle (ACSM, 2009). For this reason, it can be said that there may have been even greater var-
iability in 1RM strength in the women who were in our study, which could have affected our results.
There are other factors that can also explain the results. The resistance exercise training protocol
that the LCI and HCI groups underwent during the study was based on the recommendations from
a meta-analysis from Rhea et al. (2003) for parameters that would elicit maximum strength gains
in untrained individuals: training for three days per week, at a mean volume of four sets per muscle
group. However, the meta-analysis also recommended a mean training intensity of 60% of 1RM
strength for training. Because the authors classified untrained as simply not having been involved
in resistance exercise training for at least one year, we decided to have our participants train at below
60% (50% for the first two weeks, 55% for the final two weeks) since the participants in this study had
little or no previous experience performing the bench press (and resistance exercise training in gen-
eral). Given the results from the present study, it is possible that the training intensity in the LCI and
HCI groups were not sufficient enough to stimulate significant gains in strength, especially when par-
ticipants trained at 55% of 1RM for weeks three and four.
Although there were not more pronounced findings in terms of differences among the groups, there
were some intriguing findings in the percent 1RM data related to differences between time points
within each group. In the LCI group, there were significant differences between post-test and 1 week
and 2 week percent 1RM increases. However, at the retention test, there were no longer significant dif-
ferences compared with 2 week values; there was only a significant difference when compared to
1 week. On the other hand, HCI had significant differences compared to both 1 week and 2 week val-
ues at the retention test. These numbers seem to indicate that at the retention test, there was an up-
ward trend in percent 1RM improvements in the HCI group, while in the LCI group there was a
downward trend. These findings can be related to the results that were seen with the checklist scores-
that at retention, greater improvements were found in HCI while LCI had no improvements shown.
482 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

4.3. Dart-throwing performance scores

For dart-throwing CE and VE scores, we did not find any differences between treatment groups, nor
between treatment groups and the control. Interestingly, two studies that were done previously
(Meira & Tani, 2001; Moreno et al., 2003) also found no differences between a LCI and HCI group in
performance on dart-throwing, so our results are in line with these findings. However, it is hard to
draw any conclusions from these studies as to why dart-throwing specifically seems to be absent of
any of the learning effects between LCI and HCI that have been commonly seen in other research in
this area. The authors in the cartwheel learning study by Smith et al. (2003) discussed that the preci-
sion in performance can be a factor in whether or not a learning effect may be seen during research.
The researchers stated that ‘‘small errors in the trajectory of the center of gravity while attempting
a cartwheel would result in relatively large errors in foot placement’’ (Smith et al., 2003, p. 1261).
Dart-throwing is a skill that also requires a high amount of precision, and similarly, small errors in
the trajectory of the dart towards the target are very likely to produce large errors in scoring. This
is emphasized even more so by the fact that the participants were throwing darts with their nondom-
inant arms, which clearly increased the difficulty of the task and made it easier to produce errors. So
perhaps there could have been some kind of learning effect of practice, but the sensitivity of the
measures could not quantify this learning experimentally. In addition, there were no warm-up tosses
given before the beginning of the dart-throwing test. Since the warm-up decrement is known to affect
performance (Adams, 1961), if participants were given even a few warm-up throws, it might have
primed or prepared the participant to re-establish the motor program parameters.
4.4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results indicated trends that matched prior studies on contextual interference, in
which LCI performed better during acquisition, but that these effects had disappeared or were reduced
at the post-test and retention test. In contrast, while HCI showed initial decrements in performance at the
beginning, they were able to improve as time progressed throughout the training period, and at the post-
test and retention test they were the only group that exhibited any improvements. These results indicate
that the HCI group participants were able to retain the bench press movement after their training proto-
col, whereas participants in the LCI condition were not able to replicate the movement post-training.
This study can provide a guideline for how resistance exercise training tasks could be taught. An
important feature of future studies should take into account task similarity and use a secondary task
that will help in the learning of the bench press. Since the dart-throw is a dissimilar task and also
would likely not be practical to use in a real world setting, perhaps using a lower body exercise or
other resistance exercise with a light weight as the secondary task in between sets may help optimize
the learning of the bench press. However, interpolating any secondary task between sets of the crite-
rion strength based task (e.g., bench press, squat, deadlift, etc.), provided that it does not cause addi-
tional fatigue, could be used to create a contextual interference effect and enhance the learning of that
strength based task. In addition, more practice trials should be undertaken and more experienced lift-
ers should be considered as part of future studies. Furthermore, great care should be taken to include a
familiarization and use of multiple testing sessions in order to reduce variability of 1RM strength test-
ing. Overall, more research is needed to further elucidate how pronounced this contextual interference
effect is between HCI and LCI for complex resistance exercise training tasks.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Malcolm Shackelford and the Digital Media Center at The Florida
State University for supplying us with video equipment and assisting with video editing and to Nich-
olas Ruppel, Jared Zatkowsky, Andrew Cromer, Caleb Bazyler, Whitney Richards, Michael Beitzel, Kris-
tin Mendez, Tyler Cobb, and Aaron Hines for their assistance during data collection for this study.

Appendix 1

The appendix displays the movement component checklist that was used for this study. This
checklist was created by Marshall A. Naimo and Michael C. Zourdos. Michael Zourdos is a Certified
 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484 483

Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) with six years of experience, a collegiate powerlifting
coach, and a national level USA Powerlifting (USAPL) competitor. The components on this checklist
are commonly used techniques by powerlifters to maximize their bench press potential in power-
lifting competitions in accordance with the rules of the USAPL and International Powerlifting Fed-
eration (IPF) as well as decrease the likelihood of injury.
484 M.A. Naimo et al. / Human Movement Science 32 (2013) 472–484

References

ACSM (2009). American college of sports medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 687–708.
Adams, J. A. (1961). The second facet of forgetting: A review of warm-up decrement. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 257–273.
Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 8, 235–242.
Battig, W. F. (1979). The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory
(pp. 23–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Benton, M. J., Swan, P. D., & Peterson, M. D. (2009). Evaluation of multiple one repetition maximum strength trials in untrained
women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 1503–1507.
Blazevich, A. J., & Gill, N. D. (2006). Reliability of unfamiliar, multijoint, uni- and bilateral strength tests: Effects of load and
laterality. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 226–230.
Bortoli, L., Robazza, C., Durigon, V., & Carra, C. (1992). Effects of contextual interference on learning technical sports skills.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 555–562.
Boutin, A., & Blandin, Y. (2010). On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference: Contributions of practice
schedule, task similarity and amount of practice. Human Movement Science, 29, 910–920.
Boyce, B. A., & Rey, P. D. (1990). Designing applied research in a naturalistic setting using a contextual interference paradigm.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18, 189–200.
Cuddy, L. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects. Journal of Verbal Learning &
Verbal Behavior, 21, 451–467.
Hall, K. G., Domingues, D. A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 78, 835–841.
Hubal, M. J., Gordish-Dressman, H., Thompson, P. D., Price, T. B., Hoffman, E. P., Angelopoulos, T. J., et al (2005). Variability in
muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37, 964–972.
Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal
Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667.
Jones, L. L., & French, K. E. (2007). Effects of contextual interference on acquisition and retention of three volleyball skills.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 883–890.
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 36, 674–688.
Kraemer, W. J., Ratamess, N. A., Fry, A. C., & French, D. (2006). Strength training: Development and evaluation of methodology. In
P. J. Maud & C. Foster (Eds.), Physiological assessment of human fitness (2nd ed., pp. 119–150). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Landin, D. K., Hebert, E. P., & Fairweather, M. (1993). The effects of variable practice on the performance of a basketball skill.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 232–237.
Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 730–746.
Levinger, I., Goodman, C., Hare, D. L., Jerums, G., Toia, D., & Selig, S. (2009). The reliability of the 1RM strength test for untrained
middle-aged individuals. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12, 310–316.
Meira, C. M., Jr., & Tani, G. (2001). The contextual interference effect in acquisition of dart-throwing skill tested on a transfer test
with extended trials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 910–918.
Moreno, F. J., Avila, F., Damas, J., Garcia, J. A., Luis, V., Reina, R., et al (2003). Contextual interference in learning precision skills.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 121–128.
Ploutz-Snyder, L. L., & Giamis, E. L. (2001). Orientation and familiarization to 1RM strength testing in old and young women.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15, 519–523.
Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength
development. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35, 456–464.
Sakamoto, A., & Sinclair, P. J. (2006). Effect of movement velocity on the relationship between training load and the number of
repetitions of bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 523–527.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73, 145–157.
Shimano, T., Kraemer, W. J., Spiering, B. A., Volek, J. S., Hatfield, D. L., Silvestre, R., et al (2006). Relationship between the number
of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 819–823.
Smith, P. J. K. (2002). Applying contextual interference to snowboarding skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 999–1005.
Smith, P. J., & Davies, M. (1995). Applying contextual interference to the Pawlata roll. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 455–462.
Smith, P. J., Gregory, S. K., & Davies, M. (2003). Alternating versus blocked practice in learning a cartwheel. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 96, 1255–1264.
Ste-Marie, D. M., Clark, S. E., Findlay, L. C., & Latimer, A. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting
skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 115–126.
Tsutsui, S., Lee, T. D., & Hodges, N. J. (1998). Contextual interference in learning new patterns of bimanual coordination. Journal
of Motor Behavior, 30, 151–157.
Wrisberg, C. A. (1991). A field-test of the effect of contextual variety during skill acquistion. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 11, 21–30.
Wrisberg, C. A., & Liu, Z. (1991). The effect of contextual variety on the practice, retention, and transfer of an applied motor skill.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 406–412.
Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Kraemer, W. J. (2006). Science and practice of strength training (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.