Does Overpractice Improve Motor Learning?

NCT02898701 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: IRB_00085515
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 65
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study contains two pilot studies: 1) one study will investigate practice dosage of a postural stepping task in healthy young individuals in order to determine an operational definition of performance plateau, and 2) the other study will investigate whether practicing beyond reaching a performance plateau improves learning of a postural stepping task in healthy older adults, compared to discontinuing practice immediately after reaching a performance plateau. The investigators hypothesize that the group that continues to practice beyond reaching their performance plateau will learn and retain the motor task better than the other group.

Conditions

Aging

Keywords

Motor Learning; Dose of Motor Practice; Postural Control; Serial Reaction Time Task; Retention; Transfer; Overpractice; Overtraining; Overlearning

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Retention on the Postural Stepping Task

  Retention is the ability to maintain performance improvements of a motor skill after a period of no practice. Response time (RT) is collected \& defined as reaction time (amount of time from stimulus presentation to initial release of foot from electrode) plus movement time (amount of time from initial release of foot to foot reaching target). The first half of Block 1 of Day 1 serves as the pre-test performance. The primary outcome measure is the difference in the RT between pre-test and retention test. A decrease in RT over the course of practice reflects an increased response speed and a corresponding improvement in performance.

  3 or 4 days after training ends (i.e., 2 or 3 days of no training prior to retention test)

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Transfer to an Untrained Task

  3 or 4 days after training ends (i.e., 2 or 3 days of no training prior to retention test)

Study Arms (3)

No Overpractice (NoOVP)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Subjects will perform the intervention (i.e., motor practice of a standing serial reaction time task) according to the practice schedule until they reach a performance plateau on the repeated sequence. At that time, members of the NoOVP group will cease practicing.

Behavioral: Motor Practice of a Standing Serial Reaction Time Task

Overpractice (OVP)

EXPERIMENTAL

Subjects will perform the intervention (i.e., motor practice of a standing serial reaction time task) according to the practice schedule until they reach a performance plateau on the repeated sequence. At that time, members of the OVP group will continue to practice as part of the overpractice phase until they have completed 100% overpractice.

Behavioral: Motor Practice of a Standing Serial Reaction Time Task

Standard of Care (SoC)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Subjects will perform the intervention (i.e., motor practice of a standing serial reaction time task) until they have performed 144 practice trials over the course of one day. At that time, members of the SoC group will cease practicing.

Behavioral: Motor Practice of a Standing Serial Reaction Time Task

Interventions

Motor Practice of a Standing Serial Reaction Time Task BEHAVIORAL

Subjects will perform a standing serial reaction time task on a step reaction mat. Subjects will step to a series of targets, based on a series of stimuli that are presented. One trial is composed of two 12-step sequences. One of the 12-step sequences is random, while the other is a repeated sequence; sequences are presented in random order. After each trial, the subject rests for 25 seconds. Six trials equal 1 block of practice, which is followed by a 4 minute rest break. After each block, feedback is provided about average response time (RT) on all steps included in the block. One complete day of practice consists of 6 blocks of practice in which each block consists of 6 trials.

No Overpractice (NoOVP); Overpractice (OVP); Standard of Care (SoC)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 95 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may not qualify if:

• acute medical problems
• uncorrected vision loss
• any other conditions that affect their mobility or balance which might affect their ability to perform the motor task (arthritis, orthopedic complications, metabolic, vestibular, etc)
• Montreal Cognitive Assessment score \<26
• non-english speaking

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Utah: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, United States

Location

Related Publications (12)

• Trewartha KM, Garcia A, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR. Fast but fleeting: adaptive motor learning processes associated with aging and cognitive decline. J Neurosci. 2014 Oct 1;34(40):13411-21. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1489-14.2014.

  PMID: 25274819 BACKGROUND

• Clark BC, Manini TM. Functional consequences of sarcopenia and dynapenia in the elderly. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 May;13(3):271-6. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328337819e.

  PMID: 20154609 BACKGROUND

• Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):S225-39. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018).

  PMID: 18230848 BACKGROUND

• Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, Boyd L, Jacobson Kimberley T, Schindler-Ivens SM, Hornby TG, Ross SA, Scheets PL. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Oct;90(10):1692-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005.

  PMID: 19801058 BACKGROUND

• Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2053-8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695. Epub 2014 May 27.

  PMID: 24867924 BACKGROUND

• Lang CE, MacDonald JR, Gnip C. Counting repetitions: an observational study of outpatient therapy for people with hemiparesis post-stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2007 Mar;31(1):3-10. doi: 10.1097/01.npt.0000260568.31746.34.

  PMID: 17419883 BACKGROUND

• Krueger WFC. Further studies in overlearning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1930;13(2):152-163.

  BACKGROUND

• Melnick MJ. Effects of overlearning on the retention of a gross motor skill. Res Q. 1971 Mar;42(1):60-9. No abstract available.

  PMID: 5279070 BACKGROUND

• Schendel JD, Hagman JD. On sustaining procedural skills over a prolonged retention interval. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1982;67(5):605-610.

  BACKGROUND

• Driskell JE, Willis RP, Copper C. Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77(5):615-622.

  BACKGROUND

• Jones MB. Nonimposed overpractice and skill retention. DTIC Document;1986.

  BACKGROUND

• Olivier GN, Dibble LE, Paul SS, Lohse KR, Walter CS, Marker RJ, Hayes HA, Foreman KB, Duff K, Schaefer SY. Personalized practice dosages may improve motor learning in older adults compared to "standard of care" practice dosages: A randomized controlled trial. Front Rehabil Sci. 2022 Aug 3;3:897997. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.897997. eCollection 2022.

  PMID: 36189036 DERIVED

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: SUPPORTIVE CARE
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: PhD Student, Physical Therapist, Teaching Assistant

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 7, 2016
• First Posted: September 13, 2016
• Study Start: September 1, 2016
• Primary Completion: March 17, 2020
• Study Completion: March 17, 2020
• Last Updated: June 15, 2021

Record last verified: 2021-06

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)