Human Movement Science 8 (1989) 227-245 227

North-Holland

COGNITION IN MOTOR LEARNING:

IMAGERY EFFECTS ON CONTEXTUAL INTERFERENCE *

Tina E. GABRIELE
Umuersity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Craig R. HALL
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Timothy D. LEE
McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Gabriele, T.E., C.R. Hall and T.D. Lee, 1989. Cognition in motor
learning: Imagery effects on contextual interference. Human Move-
ment Science 8, 227-245.

Some of the cognitive activities operating to produce contextual interference effects were investi-
gated by manipulating imagery practice and physical practice. In the first experiment, a factorial
combination of physical practice conditions with imagery practice conditions was employed to
examine the influence of random vs. blocked imagery practice on the expected retention
advantage of random over blocked physical practice. Subjects acquired four movement patterns to
predetermined criterion performance levels and were subsequently tested on immediate (10 min)
and delayed (two week) retention, Random imagery, regardless of whether it was combined with
blocked or random physical practice, was found to facilitate retention compared to blocked
imagery on both retention tests. In experiment 2, the benefit of random imagery was compared to
equivalent amounts of random physical practice and random physical practice with rest intervals.
Subjects, under a random practice schedule, either physically practiced movement patterns,
physically practiced movement patterns with a rest interval between patterns, imaged movement
patterns, or imaged irrelevant items while acquiring three movement patterns. In addition to these
conditions, a blocked physical practice control group also was included. Both immediate and
delayed retention tests followed the acquisition of the movement patterns. Random imagery

* This research was supported in part by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada to C. Hall and T. Lee.
Correspondence should be addressed to CR. Hall, Faculty of Physical Education, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7.

0167-9457/89/$3.50 0 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

228 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

practice (relevant or irrelevant) was shown to cause as much interference during acquisition and as
much benefit to retention as random physical practice. Random physical practice with a rest
interval produced slightly less interference during acquisition but facilitated retention as much as
the other random practice conditions. These results indicate the importance of cognitive processes
in the contextual interference effect.

The learning of several motor skills within a practice session is

affected by the order in which the skills are practiced. Drill-type or
blocked practice results in very rapid acquisition of each skill. An
unsystematic or random practice order produces a much slower acquisi-
tion of these skills. Retention and transfer tests, however, show an
opposite result. Random practice orders facilitate retention and trans-
fer relative to blocked orders. This acquisition-retention ‘paradox’ is
termed the contextual interference effect (Battig 1979; Battig and Shea
1980) and is a robust finding in the motor skills literature (e.g., Del Rey
et al. 1983; Gabriele et al. 1987; Lee and Magi11 1983; Shea and
Morgan 1979).
Two theoretical positions have emerged to explain contextual inter-
ference effects in motor learning. One position (Shea and Morgan
1979; Shea and Zirnny 1983, 1988) offers that when practice is under-
taken in a random order, the benefit to learning occurs by the introduc-
tion into working memory of two or more similar tasks. The inter-
ference created in working memory during practice results in enhanced
elaborative and distinctive processing that ultimately facilitates reten-
tion. Another theoretical position (Lee and Magi11 1983, 1985; Lee et
al. 1985) suggests that interference leads to forgetting of action plans in
working memory, thus necessitating the reconstruction of plans on each
new trial under random conditions. This reconstruction process is
suggested to enhance retention and transfer.
While explanations of the effect differ, the common denominator
amongst these theoretical positions is that contextual interference is a
cognitive-based effect. For some, contextual interference is produced
by the elaborative and distinctive processing that is promoted under
random conditions, yet impoverished under blocked practice orders
(Del Rey et al. 1983; Shea and Zimny 1983). For others, the effect is
caused by the action planning activities that must be conducted as a
result of forgetting under spaced (random) conditions (Lee and Magi11
1983, 1985). The shared theme in these explanations is the primary role
played by central planning activities and the prominence of memory
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 229

phenomena (e.g., forgetting, elaborative and distinctive processing) in

both acquisition and retention/ transfer effects.
To better understand how processes such as forgetting and elabora-
tion function to produce the contextual interference effect, and to
determine which theoretical position best explains this effect, a useful
approach would seem to be the investigation of random and blocked
practice through some highly cognitive activity. An activity that is
particularly suitable for this purpose is mental imagery. It is often
employed in conjunction with physical practice and the positive effects
of mental imagery on motor skill learning are well documented (see
Feltz and Landers 1983). Thus, one concern of the present research was
the influence of mental imagery on the acquisition and retention of
motor skills practiced under random and blocked schedules. A second
concern was to gain some understanding of the cognitive processes
(e.g., forgetting and elaboration) operating to produce the contextual
interference effect when imagery was introduced into the practice
schedules.

Experiment 1

The primary interest in this experiment was the impact of a factorial

combination of physical practice conditions with imagery practice
conditions. The actions to be learned were four patterns of arm
movement that were different in terms of spatial layout. Each group of
subjects received physical practice interspersed with imagery practice.
Blockedphysical-blocked imagery (BB) subjects practiced one trial of a
pattern physically, then imaged the same pattern. This process was
repeated until a movement time criterion was reached. After criterion
was attained a new pattern was introduced for acquisition. Random
physical-blocked imagery (RB) subjects physically practiced movement
patterns in an unsystematic order. However, following each physical
practice trial the subject continued to image the same movement
pattern. Blocked physical-random imagery (BR) subjects physically
practiced the same movement pattern to criterion but interspersed each
physical practice trial with imagery practice on the other movement
patterns, in a random order. Finally, random physical-random imagery
(RR) subjects undertook both types of practice in a random fashion
until a movement time criterion was reached.
230 T. E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

The main hypothesis being tested here is that random imagery

practice should have effects on acquisition and retention similar to
those of random physical practice, and the effects of blocked imagery
practice should correspond to those of blocked physical practice. So for
example, if random imagery, combined with blocked physical practice
(BR) does not facilitate retention in comparison to blocked imagery
combined with blocked physical practice (BB), then this would suggest
that imagery practice has no influence on contextual interference.
However, if imagery practice can produce the contextual interference
effect, then retention under BR should exceed that of BB.

Method

Subjects
Volunteers were recruited from the general student population at the
University of Western Ontario. A total of 117 subjects completed the
Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ), an instrument designed to
measure movement imagery ability (Hall and Pongrac 1983). Of this
sample, 53 were males and 64 were females. Based upon their MIQ
scores, 40 of these subjects were selected to participate in the experi-
ment. There were 18 males with a mean age of 20.94 _t 1.95 years and
22 females with a mean age of 22.0 + 2.65 years.

Materials and apparatus

Four movement patterns (i.e., labelled A, B, C, and D) were per-
formed by each subject during each experimental phase. To perform a
pattern, the subject was required to stand directly in front of the
experimental apparatus and respond to a green stimulus as quickly as
possible. The apparatus was the same as that employed by Gabriele et
al. (1987: fig. 1). In general, the equipment consisted of a knockdown
base constructed of wood and measuring 49.5 x 54.5 x 12.5 cm. This
knockdown base was atop a 54 X 63 x 71 cm supporting box also
constructed of wood. The base of the apparatus was arranged so that a
metal start button measuring 5 cm x 10 cm was centred on top of the
base at the front end. The six knockdown bars were constructed of
cylindrically-shaped, foam-padded plastic, and were attached to a
wooden base by metal hinges and a spring such that they would return
to the vertical position after being struck. Each of the six bars extended
upwards 12 cm from the top of the base and were arranged from front
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 231

to rear in three pairs (one left and one right of centre, each pair 14 cm
from the middle of the base and 16 cm from the next pair; i.e., on each
side, the bars were 16 cm apart from front to rear). The first pair was
located 8 cm from the front of the base and the last pair was located 3
cm from the rear of the base. Each bar was situated 7 cm from the sides
of the base.
The knockdown apparatus was interfaced with an NEC Advanced
Personal Computer which was used to measure and record reaction
time, movement time, total response time, and correct and incorrect
responses for each subject. A monitor located on a table directly in
front of the subject and to the rear and slightly above the knockdown
apparatus was utilized to present a warning and an imperative signal to
the subject, as well as to provide feedback for each trial (if the response
was correct and, if not, the correct pattern). The monitor also informed
the subject of the pattern to be performed as well as the instruction to
start a trial. A trial was initiated when the subject depressed the start
button. This activated a yellow warning signal followed by a green
imperative signal. Random foreperiods of 1, 2, or 3 seconds preceded
the imperative signal on each trial. The experimenter was seated at the
computer terminal located to the side and behind the subject.
Upon appearance of the imperative signal the subject released the
start button and knocked down three of the bars in a prescribed order
using the dominant hand. The order in which the bars were to be
knocked down was different for each pattern. These orders were
illustrated on the monitor and shown to the subject during a preview
period just before the initial acquisition phase. Four patterns were
practiced during the acquisition trials. They consisted of knocking
down three bars in one of the following orders: (a) right front, left
front, and right rear; (b) left front, right middle, and left rear; (c) left
middle, right middle, and left rear; (d) right front, left rear, and right
rear. The same four patterns practiced during acquisition trials were
performed on the retention trials. Following the execution of a pattern,
the total response time was displayed on the monitor for the subject to
view as well as whether or not the pattern had been produced correctly.
If the pattern was incorrect, the correct pattern was displayed (this
feedback was presented only during the acquisition phase). Prede-
termined total response times for each of the four patterns, as well as
the correct production of the patterns, had to be achieved to reach the
criterion performance level required for all subjects during the acquisi-
232 T. E. Gabriele ef al. / Contextual interference

tion phase. The criterion times established by the experimenter for

patterns A, B, C, and D were 630, 640, 620, and 640 milliseconds
respectively. These times were selected on the basis of previous research
(Grabriele et al. 1987).
The MIQ was employed to assess both visual and kinesthetic imag-
ery ability of the subjects. This inventory consists of nine actions which
subjects are asked to image both visually and kinesthetically. The MIQ,
which utilizes arm, leg, and whole body movements, has movement
items which are quite simple and can be performed by most individu-
als.
Completing the MIQ involves various steps. The subject must first
assume a starting position for a movement, after which the movement
is carried out as described in the questionnaire. The next step involves
assuming the starting position again but instead of producing the
movement, it is imaged. The subject is then asked to assess the degree
of difficulty for imaging that movement on a seven-point scale, with
one being classified as ‘very easy’. The MIQ is a reliable instrument
and has been used successfully in previous studies investigating imag-
ery ability (Goss et al. 1986).

Procedure
The four groups employed in this experiment were designated as
blocked physical-blocked imagery (BB), blocked physical-random
imagery (BR), random physical-blocked imagery (RB), and random
physical-random imagery (RR). The BB group physically performed a
pattern and then imaged the same pattern on three successive trials.
This sequence was repeated until the pattern was physically performed
within the criterion limits previously set for that pattern. This same
process was then completed for each of the other three patterns. For
the BR group the physical trials were blocked while the imagery trials
were randomized and for the RB group the opposite was true. For
example, given that an upper case letter represents a physical trial and
a lower case letter represents an imagery trial, an example of a
sequence of trials employed for subjects in the BR group would have
been: A, c, d, b, A, b, d, c, A, b, c, d.. . etc. (to criterion). The RR
group physically performed a pattern and then imaged the three other
patterns, the order for all four patterns being determined randomly. A
possible sequence for a subject in the RR group would have been A, b,
d, c, D, c, a, b, C, a, d, b . _. etc. (to criterion). This process was
 i? E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 233

Table 1
Experimental groups and sample sequences for experiment 1.

Group Physical Imagery Sample sequence a

trials trials
BB Blocked Blocked BbbbBbbb., (to criterion)
cccccccc
BR Blocked Random BadcBcad (to criterion)
CbadCdba..
RB Random Blocked BbbbAaaaDdddCccc (to criterion)
RR Random Random BadcAbdcDcabCadb (to criterion)

a Upper case letters denote physical trials, lower case letters denote imagery practice trials

continued until all patterns were physically performed within the

criterion limits established. Table 1 summarizes these groups.
It was not possible to include an imagery control group (a group that
only had imagery trials during acquisition) in this experiment since
there was no method of measuring acquisition performance (i.e., when
criterion performance had been achieved) for such a group. Further-
more, all predictions of interest relate strictly to how the physical
practice trials and imagery trials were structured. For example, if it is
the case that imagery trials have no effect, then both the RR and RB
groups would be expected to perform the same as a typical random
practice schedule group, and the BB and BR groups would perform the
same as a typical blocked practice schedule group.
There were ten subjects in each experimental group, five of whom
were classified as high visual imagers (according to their scores on the
MIQ) and five were classified as low visual imagers. The system
employed to classify subjects into high and low imagers was the same
as that used by Goss et al. (1986). A score of 9 for the visual
component of the MIQ classified subjects as high imagers while a score
of greater than or equal to 28 classified subjects as low imagers. The
resultant two groups had the following MIQ means and SDS: High
Imagery = 9.0 + 0, Low Imagery = 30.35 + 5.01.
In total, the experiment consisted of four phases: (a) acquisition, (b)
interpolated activity, (c) immediate retention, and (d) delayed reten-
tion. Every subject participated in all of these phases.

Acquisition phase. Initially, the four movement patterns to be acquired

were shown to the subjects on the monitor. The order in which the four
234 T. E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

patterns were presented to each subject was determined using a Latin

square. Each pattern was shown for about 5 sec.
During acquisition, subjects were required to perform the patterns as
had been indicated on the monitor. The pattern to be performed was
indicated by a letter (e.g., A), but unlike most previous studies, the
outline of the pattern (an illustration of the bars to knock down) was
not shown to the subjects. Augmented feedback was provided following
each acquisition trial. There was no set number of trials to be per-
formed during this phase. Subjects continued to practice until each
pattern’s criterion had been achieved (following Gabriele et al. 1987).
The criteria were that all four patterns were performed correctly and
within the times established for each pattern. Furthermore, this had to
occur on two consecutive trials for each pattern. That is, the acquisition
phase did not end until subjects had performed a series of trials in
which each of the four patterns were done quickly and correctly on two
consecutive occasions. Any pattern that was performed incorrectly or
too slowly could not constitute part of this series. It is important to
note that the achievement of a criterion was based solely on physical
trials and not on imagery trials. The order of pattern practice for all
four groups of subjects was determined using a Latin square. Subjects
were not informed of the criteria that had been established for success-
ful completion of the acquisition phase, but were simply told to do
their best.
The directions given to the subjects regarding the imaging of pat-
terns stressed the use of visual imagery. They were asked to image each
pattern from the very start of the task to the very end. In other words,
from when the words appeared on the computer monitor informing the
subjects of the upcoming pattern until they knocked down the final bar
and were informed on the monitor if their performance was correct.
The subjects were also instructed to keep their eyes closed while
imaging and to report to the experimenter when they were finished.
The representation of feedback was unique for the imagery portion
of the acquisition phase. A diagram depicting all the knockdown bars,
numbered 1 through 6, appeared on the monitor after the subjects
reported they had completed imaging a pattern. They then verbally
reported to the experimenter which bars, by number and in order, that
they had imaged. The experimenter then replied ‘yes correct’ and
proceeded to the next pattern, or ‘ no that is wrong’ and showed the
subjects, via the computer monitor, the correct pattern.
 T. E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 235

Interpolated activity phase. During this phase, subjects were seated at

the computer terminal and performed a word recognition task. The
task involved studying a list of 25 words presented one at a time on the
screen. Following the presentation of these words, a mathematical
problem was presented to the subjects which had to be correctly solved
before the subject could move on to the next step in the task. Then a
list of 50 words was presented one at a time, 25 of these words were the
original ones first presented to the subjects and 25 were distracters. The
subjects had to decide whether each word presented was one of the
original 25 or not by depressing the ‘Y’ key or ‘N’ key on the terminal.
The time allowed to perform the recognition task was 10 minutes
regardless of whether the task had been completed or not.

Immediate retention phase. Following the interpolated activity, the

subjects returned to the knockdown apparatus and were informed that
the patterns performed during the acquisition phase would be repeated.
The general task procedures for this phase were the same as those
employed during acquisition, except for the fact that no feedback was
received after any trial, either in the form of total response time or
whether the pattern was correct or incorrect. The experimenter again
emphasized that responses were to be made as fast as possible. For all
groups, the retention test consisted of three physical trials of each
movement pattern performed in a blocked manner so that three con-
secutive trials of one pattern were performed before the subject moved
to the next pattern. The order of pattern presentation was determined
using a Latin square. No preview of the four movement patterns was
given prior to the retention test.

Delayed retention phase. This phase of the experiment was conducted

two weeks after the initial testing procedure. The delayed retention test
again consisted of three trials of each pattern performed in a blocked
manner. No feedback was provided, no preview of the patterns was
given, and again the order of pattern presentation was determined
using a Latin square. Following the delayed retention test, subjects
were given a question&ire regarding their use of imagery in the study
and then debriefed as to the purpose of the study.

Statistical analysis
The dependent measures for acquisition performance were Reaction
Time (RT), Movement Time (MT), Total Time (TT) and trials to
236 i? E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

criterion. However, since RT, MT and their sum (TT) determine the
criterion in part, we felt that trials to criterion was the primary
dependent measure of interest. This set of data was analyzed in a 2
(random vs. blocked physical practice) X 2 (random vs. blocked imag-
ery practice) x 2 (high vs. low imagers) x 4 (patterns) ANOVA with
repeated measures on the last factor.
The dependent measure for each retention trial was a score from
zero to two. A ‘2’ was recorded if both the criterion time was achieved
and the pattern was performed correctly. A score of ‘1’ was recorded if
the pattern was correct but not within the criterion time. A ‘0’ was
recorded if the pattern was performed incorrectly. This method has
been used previously (Gabriele et al. 1987) and reflects a score com-
posed of both speed and accuracy. These data were analyzed in a 2
(random vs. blocked physical practice) x 2 (random vs. blocked imag-
ery practice) X 2 (high vs. low imagers) X 4 (patterns) X 2 (immediate
vs. delayed retention test) ANOVA. Tests for differences between
means were conducted using the Scheffe procedure. All significant
results are reported at p < 0.05.

Results

Acquisition
The nature of physical practice appeared to affect trials to criterion
more than any other factor. Blocked physical practice groups achieved
criterion in fewer trials than random physical practice groups (4.15 vs.
4.75 trials to criterion per pattern). This effect was confirmed by a
significant physical practice hypothesis test, F(1, 32) = 29.19, MSe =
9.26. The influence of the imagery practice factor, however, resulted in
an interaction with the physical practice effect, F(1, 32) = 10.04, Mse
= 9.26. This interaction revealed that random imagery conditions had
more of a disruptive impact on blocked physical practice subjects than
on random physical practice subjects (BB = 3.67, BR = 4.62, RB = 7.80
and RR = 5.70 trials to criterion per pattern). No other effects were
found for the acquisition data.

Retention
A number of significant effects were revealed by the retention data.
Random physical practice resulted in better retention (M = 3.91) than
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 237

Table 2
Retention scores for experiment 1 (maximum = 6).

Group Retention test

Immediate Delayed

BB 1.82 1.02
BR 4.10 1.95
RB 4.32 2.95
RR 4.92 3.41

Note:
BB = blocked physical practice with blocked imagery practice;
BR = blocked physical practice with random imagery practice;
RB = random physical practice with blocked imagery practice;
RR = random physical practice with random imagery practice.

blocked physical practice (M = 2.22) F(1, 32) = 25.89), MSe = 8.86.

Also, random imagery practice resulted in better retention (M = 3.61)
than blocked imagery practice (M = 2.53), F(1,32) = 10.55, MSe =
8.86. No interaction, however, between the physical and imagery prac-
tice factors was found. Also, as expected, retention scores were better
on the immediate retention test (M = 3.79) than on the delayed reten-
tion test (M = 2.35) F(1, 32) = 34.42, MSe = 4.84. The effects of
physical practice, imagery practice and retention test on the retention
scores are illustrated in table 2.
The contrast of high versus low imagers produced a main effect,
F(1, 32) = 8.69, MSe = 8.86, as well as an interaction with retention
test, F(1, 32) = 4.88, MSe = 4.84, On the immediate retention test,
high and low imagers scored equally well. However, the high imagers
had better retention scores on the delayed test than the low imagers.
One additional finding was an interaction between imagery practice,
retention test and movement pattern, F(3,96) = 3.31, MSe = 2.55. This
interaction indicated that some patterns were better remembered than
others for the random schedule on the first retention test.

Discussion

As found previously, physical practice conducted in a random order

facilitates both immediate and delayed retention relative to blocked
practice orders (cf. Gabriele et al. 1987; Lee and Magi11 1983; Shea and
238 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextud interference

Morgan 1979). ’ While theoretical accounts of this effect are largely

cognitive in nature, there has been no examination of the relative
contribution of cognition and movement in contextual interference.
The results of the present study however, strongly support a dominant
cognitive role. When planning in the absence of physical practice was
undertaken in a random order, retention was facilitated relative to
blocked imagery conditions. The nature of the additive effects of
physical and imagery practice indicated that random imagery, regard-
less of being combined with blocked or random physical practice,
facilitated retention. Further, the failure of imagery ability to interact
with random/blocked imagery practice effects suggests that this pro-
motion of cognitive analyses is not restricted to only those individuals
who image well since poor imagers gained as much from random
imagery practice as the skilled imagers.
While the present results support a cognitive-based interpretation of
contextual interference effects, at least two important questions were
not empirically addressed. First, what is the contribution of imagery
practice relative to an equivalent amount of physical practice? Second,
what is the theoretical contribution of these imagery effects towards
understanding why contextual interference occurs? These two questions
were addressed in the following study.

Experiment 2

While random imagery augmented contextual interference effects in

experiment 1, no information was gathered regarding the benefit of
random imagery compared to an equivalent amount of random physi-
cal practice. One purpose of the present study was to examine this issue
by comparing two groups; one that received random physical practice
only and the other receiving random imagery practice interspersed
between random physical practice trials (same procedure as for the RR
group in experiment 1).

’ The better retention performance on the part of the random conditions can not simply be
attributed to the greater amount of practice these conditions received during acquisition. Gabriele
et al. (1987) employed the same method of training subjects to criterion as used in this study and
found no difference for either acquisition or retention performance between a blocked group and
a blocked group that was matched for number of acquisition trials with a random group.
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 239

A second purpose here was to gain some understanding of the

processes operating during the random physical and imagery practice
that produced an increase in the number of acquisition trials, but also
facilitated retention in experiment 1. Theories explaining the contextual
interference effect all seem to suggest that the amount of interference
created during acquisition is directly related to retention performance.
That is, the more interference created during acquisition, the better the
retention. Since retention is usually assumed to be based on some
rehearsal or problem-solving activity, it follows that the interference
produced must promote such activity. To examine this idea a random
physical practice group was compared to a group that also practiced
under a random physical schedule but for which some of the practice
trials were replaced by rest intervals.
The final purpose of this experiment was to further investigate a
recent finding by Magi11 (1988) that the interference created during
acquisition under a random practice schedule, and subsequent reten-
tion, does not depend upon task similarity. Using physical practice
only, Magi11 demonstrated that when trials on the to-be-learned tasks
were interspersed with practice on other tasks, about the same amount
of interference was created (as indicated by acquisition performance)
and retention was facilitated regardless of whether the intervening tasks
were similar or unrelated to the to-be-learned tasks. To examine this
finding using non-physical practice, the relatedness of the imagery
tasks to the to-be-learned physical tasks were varied here. A group was
included in the present experiment which experienced random trials on
tasks unrelated to the physical practice trials. This group was similar in
procedure to the other random imagery group in this experiment except
that imagery was conducted on unrelated items rather than the to-be-
learned movement patterns. Our hypothesis was that these two groups
should be similar in terms of both acquisition and retention perfor-
mance.

Method

Subjects
Fifty subjects from the general student population at the University
of Western Ontario served as subjects. There were 26 females with a
mean age of 24.98 + 7.01 years and 24 males with a mean age of
25.12 + 4.89 years. All subjects completed the MIQ and were assigned
240 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

randomly to one of five groups with the restriction that MIQ scores
were equal across all groups.

Materials and apparatus

The apparatus used in this experiment was identical to that used in
experiment 1. Three of the movement patterns (patterns A, B, and D)
employed in experiment 1 were used in this experiment.

Procedure
The procedure for this experiment was identical to the first experi-
ment with a few exceptions. The five groups, each containing ten
subjects, were designated as blocked practice (B), random practice (R),
random practice with rest (RRe), random practice with similar imagery
(RS), and random practice with unrelated imagery (RU). Subjects in
the B group physically practiced one movement pattern until achieving
the criterion performance level, then a second pattern, and finally the
remaining pattern. The R subjects physically practiced all three move-
ment patterns in a random order during the acquisition trials. The RRe
group physically practiced one pattern, then rested for 20 set, physi-
cally practiced another pattern, then rested for 20 set, and continued
this format until successfully acquiring the patterns. A rest interval of
20 set was chosen since pilot work indicated this was the average length
of time for completion of two physical or imagery trials. The RS
subjects physically practiced one pattern and then imaged the remain-
ing two patterns and continued this format until successfully acquiring
the patterns. The RU group physically performed one pattern and then
imaged two of three objects. The objects were a German Shepherd dog,
a maple tree, and a station wagon car. This format of one physical trial
coupled with the imaging of two objects was also practiced until all
three movement patterns were successfully acquired. In all groups
except the B group, physical trials were ordered randomly. Feedback
was given to all subjects in the B, R, RS, and RU groups following
every third trial starting with the first trial of acquisition. For the two
imagery groups, this meant feedback was provided only when a physi-
cal trial occurred and not for any imagery trials. For the R group this
procedure meant that feedback trials were separated by two non-feed-
back trials. This was done in order to equate the amount of feedback
received by the groups during practice. The RRe group received
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 241

feedback on every trial since the rest interval between trials was
equated, with respect to time, to the non-feedback trials experienced by
the other groups.
The experiment consisted of the same four phases as in experiment
1: (a) acquisition, (b) interpolated activity, (c) immediate retention, and
(d) delayed retention. The criterion times that were employed in the
first experiment were used again here. Immediate retention was once
again 10 minutes following acquisition, while delayed retention was one
week later. Feedback was not supplied to the subjects during either of
the retention tests.

Statistical analysis
Acquisition and retention data were analyzed separately. The trials
to criterion data were analyzed using a 5 (group) X 3 (pattern) ANOVA
with repeated measures on pattern. The retention data were analyzed
using a 5 X 3 X 2 (retention test) ANOVA with repeated measured on
the last two factors. The post hoc comparisons of means were per-
formed on significant ANOVA effects using the ScheffC test. All
significant results are reported at p -C 0.05.

Results

Acquisition
There was a significant difference in the number of acquisition trials
required by the groups to achieve the criterion performance level,
F(4, 45) = 5.37, MSe = 21.89. The B group required significantly fewer
acquisition trials per pattern (M = 3.5) than the R (M = 7.3) RS
(M = 7.6), and RU (M = 8.5) groups, while the RRe group required an
intermediate number of acquisition trials (M = 5.8). There was no
significant effect of movement pattern and no group by pattern interac-
tion.

Retention
The main effect of group proved to be significant, F(4, 45) = 4.17,
MSe = 9.76. Considered together, the four groups acquiring the move-
ment patterns under a random schedule were superior to the B group
for both immediate and delayed retention. The group by retention test
means are reported in table 3. A comparison of these means with the
results from experiment 1 (see table 2) reveals that the RS group (which
242 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference

Table 3
Retention scores for experiment 2 (maximum = 6).

Group Retention test

Immediate Delayed
B 2.47 2.60
R 4.40 3.63
RRe 4.57 4.97
RS 4.13 3.70
RU 4.11 3.60

Note: B = blocked physical practice; R = random physical practice; RRe = random physical
practice with rest intervals; RS = random physical practice with similar imagery practice; RU =
random physical practice with unrelated imagery practice.

was called the ‘RR group in experiment 1) performed at almost the

same level in the two studies. Although better than all other groups in
experiment 1, this condition resulted in retention scores that were no
different from the other random groups in the present study. There was
no significant effect of movement pattern or retention test, and no
significant interactions.

Discussion

One purpose of the present study was to assess the contribution of

random imagery practice relative to an equal amount of random
physical practice. The results revealed two important findings. The
acquisition data showed that random imagery practice caused as much
interference as the random physical practice. Further, the retention
data revealed as much benefit due to imagery as was found for the
random physical conditions. Although recent findings have shown that
the contextual interference effect does not occur in the absence of
movement (Carnahan et al. 1988) the present results suggest that
imagery combined with movement produces the contextual interference
effect to the same degree as movement alone. That as much inter-
ference and retention is produced under random imagery as under
random physical practice implies that the effect is localized at the
cognitive, and probably at the movement planning level.
The present results also revealed that imagery on unrelated items
produced as much benefit to learning as imagery on the to-be-learned
task. This suggests that the introduction of unrelated tasks during
 T.E. Gabriele et al. / Contextual interference 243

acquisition can create as much interference as similar tasks, and

thereby promote increased rehearsal of the to-be-learned task. We will
return to this finding again later since it has important implications for
the two theoretical positions on contextual interference effects.
Another purpose of this experiment was to examine the relationship
between the amount of interference created during acquisition and
performance on the retention test. To do this a between-trial rest
condition (the RRe group) was employed; subjects practiced the task
under a random practice schedule’ but had a rest interval between
practice trials. This combination of random practice trials and rest
intervals produced more interference (as indicated by a greater number
of acquisition trials) than the blocked practice schedule, but less
interference than the other random practice schedules. If the amount of
interference created during acquisition is directly related to retention
performance, the same relative order from best to worst performance
should have been found for retention. That is, retention should have
been best for the R, RS, and RU groups, worst for the B group, and at
some intermediate level for the RRe group. This was not the case.

General discussion

Two main theoretical positions have been put forth to explain the
contextual interference effect. Shea and his colleagues (Shea and
Morgan 1979; Shea and Zimny 1983, 1988) contend that enhanced
elaborative and distinctive processing facilitates retention while Lee
and Magi11 (1983, 1985) suggest that forgetting-induced reconstruction
of action plans is what leads to better retention. While similar in the
emphasis on the role of cognitive processes in the contextual inter-
ference effect, these two theoretical positions diverge in terms of at
least one key empirical prediction: regarding the similarity of items in
working memory. According to Shea and Zimny (1983), the effective-
ness of random practice would be diminished as tasks become less
similar since elaborative and distinctive processing would not be pro-
moted as much by unrelated items in working memory. According to
Lee and Magi11 (1983, 1985) however, as long as forgetting occurs
between practice trials on the same task, retention should be promoted.
Thus the introduction of similar and dissimilar tasks into working
244 T.E. Gabride et al. / Contextual interference

memory should facilitate retention to an equal degree provided that

both result in the same amount forgetting of the action plan.
Experiment 1 here explored the common theme in these two posi-
tions on the contextual interference effect. In support of both positions,
the results showed that the structure of imagery practice had effects on
acquisition and retention similar to physical practice. That these imag-
ery effects were additive to the physical practice effects argues in
support of a cognitive-based explanation of contextual interference.
A contrast of the two theoretical positions was provided in experi-
ment 2. In addition to the random physical practice and random
physical-random imagery practice conditions, another group was tested
whereby random imagery trials were conducted on tasks unrelated to
the physical practice trials. This group was similar in procedure to the
random physical-random imagery practice group except that imagery
was conducted on unrelated items (e.g., a maple tree) rather than the
other to-be-learned movement patterns. The present results revealed
that imagery on unrelated items produced as much benefit to retention
as imagery on the to-be-learned tasks. This finding supports the find-
ings of Magi11 (1988) and argues against the position that contextual
interference is due to the elaboration and distinctiveness that is promo-
ted by the processing of similar items in working memory (Shea and
Zimny 1983, 1988).
Whether and in what ways imagery helps motor learning has been of
primary concern in many studies. Imagery, however, may sometimes be
detrimental to motor performance and learning. The present experi-
ments have demonstrated that just as physical practice of other move-
ments under a random practice schedule can depress acquisition per-
formance, so can movement imagery. Other recent studies also have
shown that imagery can sometimes have what might be considered as
negative effects (Finke 1979; Johnson 1982). More important than to
ask whether imagery aids or depresses performance, however, is to ask
how it operates to influence performance and learning, and what it
permits us to infer about the processing of movement-related informa-
tion. In the present experiments imagery functioned to create forgetting
of action plans, which in turn induced movement planning processes
that enhanced learning.
 T.E. Gabnele et al. / Contextual uzterference 245

References

Battig, W.F., 1979. ‘The flexibility of human memory’. In: L.S. Cermak and F.I.M. Craik (eds.),
Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 23-44.
Battig, W.F. and J.B. Shea, 1980. ‘Levels of processing of verbal materials: An overview’. In: P.
Klavora and J. Flowers (eds.), Motor learning and biomechanical factors in sport. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press. pp. 24-33.
Carnahan, H., D. VanEerd and F. Allard, 1988. Which task characteristics are necessary to find
the contextual interference effect? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, Collingwood, Ontario.
Del Rey, P., F. Wughalter and M. Whitehurst, 1983. The effects of contextual interference on
females with varied experience in open sport skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
53, 1088115.
Denis, M., 1985. Visual imagery and the use of mental practice in the development of motor skills.
Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences 10, 4S-16s.
Feltz, D.L. and D.M. Landers, 1983. The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology 5, 25-57.
Finke, R.A., 1979. The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of movement.
Cognitive Psychology 11, 235-264.
Gabriele, T.E., CR. Hall and E. Buckolz, 1987. Practice schedule effects on the acquisition and
retention of a motor skill. Human Movement Science 6, l-16.
Goss, S., CR. Hall, E. Buckolz and G. Fishburne, 1986. Imagery ability and the acquisition and
retention of movements. Memory & Cognition 14, 469-477.
Hall, C.R. and E. Buckolz, 1983. The effects of separate and interactive imagery on the recall of
movement patterns. Canadian Journal of Psychology 37, 306-312.
Hall, C.R. and J. Pongrac, 1983. Movement imagery questionnaire. London: University of
Western Ontario.
Johnson, P., 1982. The functional equivalence of imagery and movement. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology 34A, 349-365.
Lee, T.D., 1988. ‘Transfer-appropriate processing: A framework for conceptualizing practice
effects in motor learning’. In: O.G. Meijer and K. Roth (eds.), Complex motor behavior: The
motor-action controversy. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 201-215.
Lee, T.D. and R.A. Magill, 1983. The locus of contextual interference in motor skill acquisition.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 730-746.
Lee, T.D. and R.A. Magill, 1985. ‘Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition?’ In: D. Goodman,
R.B. Wilberg and I. Franks (eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and
control. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 3-22.
Lee, T.D., R.A. Magi11 and D.J. Weeks, 1985. Influence of practice schedule on testing scheme
theory predictions in adults. Journal of Motor Behavior 17, 283-299.
Magill, R.A., 1988. ‘Activity during the post-knowledge results interval can benefit motor skill
learning’. In: O.G. Meijer and K. Roth (eds.), Complex motor behavior: The motor-action
controversy. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 231-246.
Shea, J.B. and R.L. Morgan, 1979. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention,
and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory 5, 179-187.
Shea, J.B. and S.T. Zimny, 1983. ‘Context effects in memory and learning movement information’.
In: R.A. Magi11 (ed.), Memory and control of action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp.
345-346.
Shea, J.B. and ST. Zimny, 1988. ‘A cognitive approach to learned movement’. In: O.G. Meijer
and K. Roth (eds.), Complex motor behavior: The motor-action controversy. Amsterdam:
North-Holland. pp. 289-314.