Knee position error detection in closed and open kinetic chain tasks during concurrent cognitive distraction.

It is important to establish whether presumed differences among varieties of motor responses are manifested in related differences in performance. In order to determine possible functional distinctions between closed and open kinetic chain tasks, participants' performance in the presence or absence of cognitive distraction on an error-detection task was assessed. Individual testing of participants consisted of knee extension and flexion movements to experimenter-defined positions, approximating the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of the participants' range of motion on the apparatus. Performance under conditions of distraction was significantly worse than in the absence of distraction. Performance using longer movements was significantly more accurate. No substantial differences were found between closed and open kinetic chain movements. Limitations of this research for the distinction between open and closed chain tasks are addressed, and clinical implications of the effects of distraction are presented.

Summary knowledge of results.

Summary knowledge of results (KR) involves delaying the presentation of KR until a predetermined number of trials has been completed. Schmidt, Young, Swinnen, and Shapiro (1989) found an optimal summary length of 15 trials (compared to 1, 5, and 10) and Schmidt, Lange, and Young (1990) found an optimum length of 5 trials (compared to 1, 10, and 15) for 1 and 2 kinematic degree of freedom timing tasks, respectively. Experiment 1 was designed to determine the optimal summary length for learning a simple isometric force production task. The results indicated better retention for the 16-trial summary than for 8- or 1-trial summaries. Experiment 2 was an initial attempt to determine the locus of the 16-trial summary effect. Specifically, Experiment 2 focused on the role played by both the information provided in the summary presentations and the practice per se of the first 14 trials in the 16-trial block. The results suggest KR is important to ensure response stability. However, it also appears important to restrict the subject's immediate utilization of KR. This latter requirement may potentially aid the parameterization process, resulting in a reduction in response bias.