Mirror

Massed vs. Distributed (Spaced) Practice in Motor Learning

By
Robert T. Herdegen III, Ph.D., Hampden-Sydney College
rherdegen@hsc.edu

Karen E. Ford, Ph.D, Mesa State College
kford@mesastate.edu

Back to Instructor's Page

Introduction
Design
Data Analysis
References

Introduction

Will learning and performance on a mirror-tracing task be enhanced by distributed (spaced) practice relative to massed practice? The study of learning has traditionally led to important applications in dealing with real world problems. One example of this involves research that has shown that distributed or spaced practice (spreading out the learning or practice over a longer period of time) is better for learning and remembering information or a task than massed practice (concentrating the learning or practice in a shorter period of time). Certainly, this is something that is often told to students as a way of enhancing study skills and improving academic performance.

Research on this topic goes back to some of the earliest studies of verbal memory by Ebbinghaus (1885), who probably was the first psychologist to study this phenomenon experimentally. Evidence that such effects influence other behaviors or tasks was provided by Dore and Hilgard (1937). They had participants perform a pursuit rotor task (involves holding a wand or pointer in contact with a small disk that is located on the outer portion of a rotating turntable) for six trials, and varied the amount of rest time between the participants’ one-minute trials from one to 11 minutes. They found that the performance and the rate of improvement was greater for the participants who had the longer rest periods (distributed or spaced practice) than for those who had the shorter rest periods (massed practice). Although, there is some controversy over the long-term benefits of distributed practice in learning motor skills, the short-term enhancement of performance and learning of motor behaviors seems to be reliable.

Lorge (1930, as cited by Neath & Surprenant, 2003, pp. 346-347) reported a similar advantage for distributed over massed practice in a mirror drawing task in which participants were required to trace the cutout outline of a six-pointed star without touching the edges of the star while looking through a mirror. A shield was used to block the participants’ direct view of their hand and the figure to be traced, and the task was difficult because the direction of hand movement as observed through the mirror was the opposite of the actual direction of hand movement. Performance was measured by the time taken to complete the task and the number of errors (touching the edges). The results showed that performance improved more rapidly with distributed practice (1 min or 1 day rest intervals between trials) than with massed practice (no rest interval between trials), so that performance after 20 trials of massed practice was the same as after only five or six trials of distributed practice Although, there is some controversy over the long-term benefits of distributed practice in learning motor skills, the short-term enhancement of performance and learning of motor behaviors seems to be reliable.

The purpose of this experiment was to partially replicate Lorge’s (1930) study using a computer-simulated version of the mirror tracing task. Participants were required to use the computer mouse to draw a line around the outline of a star depicted on the screen (see figure). In order to simulate the reversing effect of looking through a mirror, the mouse was programmed to draw lines on the screen in the direction opposite to the mouse’s movement. Rest interval between practice trials were either short (massed practice) or long (distributed practice).

Based on the findings reviewed above, it was hypothesized that mirror tracing performance should improve with practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times would decrease across practice trials. It was also hypothesized that distributed practice should result in better learning than massed practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times should be faster for distributed than for massed practice. Finally, it was hypothesized that the advantage for distributed over massed practice should not be evident on trial one before the length of the rest time could take effect, but the advantage should increase with each successive trial. Specifically it was predicted that tracing times for the massed and distributed practice conditions would not differ on trial one, but that the difference in tracing times between massed and distributed practice conditions would increase over trials.
« Return to Top»

Design

The experiment utilizes a between-subjects design with one independent variable, the distribution of practice, operationally defined as the length of the intertrial interval. There are two levels of the independent variable, 3 seconds of rest (massed practice) or one minute of rest (distributed or spaced practice) between trials. The software randomly assigns each new participant to one of these two conditions. Each participant is asked to perform five trials using his or her preferred hand. The dependent variable is the time it takes the participant to complete the tracing of the star. All subjects should rest between trials.
« Return to Top»

Data Analysis

Improvement in performance can be assessed for the time measure by looking at changes over the five trials. One possible measure of improvement is the difference between performance on Trial 1 and on Trial 5 (T1 - T5). An independent groups t test can be conducted to compare the two groups on this T1-T5 measure. A Trials x Group (massed vs distributed/spaced practice) analysis of variance may also be performed, if desired.

« Return to Top»

References

Dore, L. R., & Hilgard, E. R. (1937). Spaced practice and the maturation hypothesis. Journal of Psychology, 4, 245-259.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory. (H.A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885)

Lorge, I. (1930). Influence of regularly interpolated time intervals upon subsequent learning. Contributions to Education (Whole No. 438).

Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Human memory: An introduction to research, data, and theory (2^ndEd.). Toronto: Thompson/Wadsworth.

« Return to Top»

Last revised:September 10, 2006 11:10:51 AM
Copyright© 1995 The University of Mississippi. All rights reserved.
Questions about this page?PsychExps



Massed vs. Distributed (Spaced) Practice in Motor Learning	By Robert T. Herdegen III, Ph.D., Hampden-Sydney College rherdegen@hsc.edu Karen E. Ford, Ph.D, Mesa State College kford@mesastate.edu

Back to Instructor's Page
Introduction Design Data Analysis References
Introduction
Will learning and performance on a mirror-tracing task be enhanced by distributed (spaced) practice relative to massed practice? The study of learning has traditionally led to important applications in dealing with real world problems. One example of this involves research that has shown that distributed or spaced practice (spreading out the learning or practice over a longer period of time) is better for learning and remembering information or a task than massed practice (concentrating the learning or practice in a shorter period of time). Certainly, this is something that is often told to students as a way of enhancing study skills and improving academic performance. Research on this topic goes back to some of the earliest studies of verbal memory by Ebbinghaus (1885), who probably was the first psychologist to study this phenomenon experimentally. Evidence that such effects influence other behaviors or tasks was provided by Dore and Hilgard (1937). They had participants perform a pursuit rotor task (involves holding a wand or pointer in contact with a small disk that is located on the outer portion of a rotating turntable) for six trials, and varied the amount of rest time between the participants’ one-minute trials from one to 11 minutes. They found that the performance and the rate of improvement was greater for the participants who had the longer rest periods (distributed or spaced practice) than for those who had the shorter rest periods (massed practice). Although, there is some controversy over the long-term benefits of distributed practice in learning motor skills, the short-term enhancement of performance and learning of motor behaviors seems to be reliable. Lorge (1930, as cited by Neath & Surprenant, 2003, pp. 346-347) reported a similar advantage for distributed over massed practice in a mirror drawing task in which participants were required to trace the cutout outline of a six-pointed star without touching the edges of the star while looking through a mirror. A shield was used to block the participants’ direct view of their hand and the figure to be traced, and the task was difficult because the direction of hand movement as observed through the mirror was the opposite of the actual direction of hand movement. Performance was measured by the time taken to complete the task and the number of errors (touching the edges). The results showed that performance improved more rapidly with distributed practice (1 min or 1 day rest intervals between trials) than with massed practice (no rest interval between trials), so that performance after 20 trials of massed practice was the same as after only five or six trials of distributed practice Although, there is some controversy over the long-term benefits of distributed practice in learning motor skills, the short-term enhancement of performance and learning of motor behaviors seems to be reliable. The purpose of this experiment was to partially replicate Lorge’s (1930) study using a computer-simulated version of the mirror tracing task. Participants were required to use the computer mouse to draw a line around the outline of a star depicted on the screen (see figure). In order to simulate the reversing effect of looking through a mirror, the mouse was programmed to draw lines on the screen in the direction opposite to the mouse’s movement. Rest interval between practice trials were either short (massed practice) or long (distributed practice). Based on the findings reviewed above, it was hypothesized that mirror tracing performance should improve with practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times would decrease across practice trials. It was also hypothesized that distributed practice should result in better learning than massed practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times should be faster for distributed than for massed practice. Finally, it was hypothesized that the advantage for distributed over massed practice should not be evident on trial one before the length of the rest time could take effect, but the advantage should increase with each successive trial. Specifically it was predicted that tracing times for the massed and distributed practice conditions would not differ on trial one, but that the difference in tracing times between massed and distributed practice conditions would increase over trials. « Return to Top»
Design
The experiment utilizes a between-subjects design with one independent variable, the distribution of practice, operationally defined as the length of the intertrial interval. There are two levels of the independent variable, 3 seconds of rest (massed practice) or one minute of rest (distributed or spaced practice) between trials. The software randomly assigns each new participant to one of these two conditions. Each participant is asked to perform five trials using his or her preferred hand. The dependent variable is the time it takes the participant to complete the tracing of the star. All subjects should rest between trials. « Return to Top»
Data Analysis
Improvement in performance can be assessed for the time measure by looking at changes over the five trials. One possible measure of improvement is the difference between performance on Trial 1 and on Trial 5 (T1 - T5). An independent groups t test can be conducted to compare the two groups on this T1-T5 measure. A Trials x Group (massed vs distributed/spaced practice) analysis of variance may also be performed, if desired. « Return to Top»
References
Dore, L. R., & Hilgard, E. R. (1937). Spaced practice and the maturation hypothesis. Journal of Psychology, 4, 245-259. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory. (H.A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885) Lorge, I. (1930). Influence of regularly interpolated time intervals upon subsequent learning. Contributions to Education (Whole No. 438). Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Human memory: An introduction to research, data, and theory (2^ndEd.). Toronto: Thompson/Wadsworth. « Return to Top»

Last revised:September 10, 2006 11:10:51 AM Copyright© 1995 The University of Mississippi. All rights reserved. Questions about this page?PsychExps