Motor learning paradigm and contextual interference in manual computer tasks in individuals with cerebral palsy.
Switch from blocked to random order when you teach manual tasks to clients with cerebral palsy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Prado et al. (2017) compared two ways to practice a computer maze task. One group used a random schedule. The other used a constant, blocked schedule.
All participants had cerebral palsy. The goal was to see which style helped them keep and use the new skill later.
What they found
The random group kept the skill better and used it in new mazes. The constant group did not.
Mixing tasks, not repeating the same one, made the learning stick.
How this fits with other research
Whitehouse et al. (2014) showed that kids with CP learn cognitive tasks slower and age does not speed them up. Artero adds that varied practice still helps motor learning, so do not wait for maturation.
Hutzler et al. (2013) found strength gains fade without upkeep. Artero gives a free way to make gains last: shuffle the order.
Hung et al. (2011) proved bimanual training beats CIMT for two-hand skills. Artero says the schedule inside any method also matters.
Why it matters
If you run upper-extremity sessions for CP, drop blocked drills. Rotate tasks every trial so the learner has to reload the plan. No extra gear, no extra time, but the skill stays after the session ends.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Take one blocked task, break it into three versions, and present them in shuffled order.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a group of disorders of movement and posture that cause activity limitations. Due to the different motor problems these individuals encounter there is a need to offer rehabilitation programs that promote motor learning. Additionally, the understanding of the learning patterns of these individuals can help us attend to their learning needs to maximize their learning efficiency. AIMS: The present study aimed to add to the knowledge base in regards to motor learning and the contextual interference (CI) effect. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study included 40 individuals with CP and 40 typically developing (TD) participants matched for age and gender with the CP group. Both groups were divided into 2 subgroups regarding the practice schedule (random or constant practice) of a manual maze test on the computer. The participants who performed in the constant practice schedule performed the same standard maze 30 times, while participants in the random practice schedule performed a total of 30 trials on 5 mazes with a different spatial layout including the standard maze. After 5min of rest, retention was studied with a task in which all participants performed the standard maze. To examine the transfer effect, all participants also performed a maze with a new layout. Time of completion was registered in seconds for each trial. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The results showed that the performance was lower in individuals with CP compared to typically developing individuals. In addition, only the participants with CP showed a contextual interference effect, with performance after the random practice schedule being superior compared to participants who practiced with a constant practice schedule. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall performance was lower in individuals with CP compared to individuals with TD. Additionally, both TD individuals and individuals with CP showed the contextual interference effect in the transfer phase, with the execution of random practice leading to better performance than constant practice. These findings provide important information to assist clinicians in developing rehabilitation programs for children with CP.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2017 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2017.03.006