The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of Practice Schedule on Testing Schema Theory Predictions in Adults
Abstract
Since the publication of Schmidt's (1975) schema theory of motor learning, numerous studies have assessed the variability of practice hypothesis. Of these, only research using children as subjects has provided consistent results. Findings from adult studies have been equivocal. Two experiments were conducted to assess the possibility that the schedule of variable practice during acquisition may be a clue to this equivocality, since only experiments (using adults as subjects) that have provide random variability of practice conditions have consistently supported the tenets of schema theory. Using a two movement rapid timing task, subjects learned to control their actions under one (constant) or four (variable) parameters, with variable practice conducted under either a blocked or a randomized schedule. Results for variable error and absolute constant error showed that random-variable practice provided strong support for the schema theory prediction, whereas blocked-variable practice provided only relatively weak support. Two contrasting implications of these results are discussed with respect to support versus non-support for Schmidt' schema theory.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355 · Cited by 1,438
Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill.
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179 · Cited by 1,227
Cited by
A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-x · Cited by 701
Self-citationNewell, K. M. (1991) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.001241 · Cited by 681
Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615569000 · Cited by 651
Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: challenging tradition
Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640410400021328 · Cited by 496
Can Forgetting Facilitate Skill Acquisition?
Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1985) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62528-5 · Cited by 269
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., & Weeks, D. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Motor Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1985-09
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 283-299
- ISSN
- 0022-2895 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1027
- OpenAlex
- W1978317791
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influence of Practice Schedule on Testing Schema Theory Predictions in Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00222895.1985.10735350
- The paper
- Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., & Weeks, D. J. (1985). Influence of Practice Schedule on Testing Schema Theory Predictions in Adults. Journal of Motor Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1985.10735350
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.