Comment on Czyż et al. (2024) on Contextual Interference in Motor Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.435Keywords:
interference effect, contextual interference, random practice, blocked practice, applied setting, sport, motor skills, meta-analysis, systematic review, commentaryAbstract
On June 10th, 2024, a paper by Czyż et al. titled “High contextual interference improves retention in motor learning: systematic review and meta-analysis” was published in the esteemed journal, Scientific Reports. Given its relevance to our research area and its close similarity to two recent meta-analyses our research group published on the effect of contextual interference (CI) on the acquisition and retention of motor skills in sport contexts (Ammar et al., 2023; Ammar et al., 2024), we read it with great interest. While we find the topic to be timely and the paper to be well-written, several concerns have arisen from our review of Czyż et al. This commentary summarizes the main concerns.
Among other issues, we were surprised by the unsubstantiated offensive statements against our previous work, such as “the review of Ammar et al. cannot be considered reliable and valid,” and by the definitive conclusion that “the CI effect is a robust phenomenon in motor learning,” which is not supported by the statistical findings of the paper. We have detailed our concerns regarding this paper in the manuscript, which we believe would be of interest to the motor learning community.
Metrics
References
Aguinis H, Gottfredson RK, Wright TA. Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using meta-analysis. J Organ Behav 32(8):1033–1043 (2011)
Ammar, A. et al. The myth of contextual interference learning benefit in sports practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 39, 100537 (2023).
Ammar, A., Trabelsi, K., Boujelbane, M.A. et al. The Effects of Contextual Interference Learning on the Acquisition and Relatively Permanent Gains in Skilled Performance: A Critical Systematic Review with Multilevel Meta-Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 36, 57 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09892-z
Battig, W. F. Facilitation and interference. In Acquis Ski (ed. Bilodeau, E. A.) 215–244 (Academic Press, 1966)
Bergh DD, Aguinis H, Heavey C, Ketchen DJ, Boyd BK, Su P, Lau CLL, Joo H. Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strateg Manag J 37(3):477–497 (2016)
Brady, F. Contextual interference: A meta-analytic study. Percept. Mot. Skills [Internet]. 99, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.99.1.116-126 (2017).
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Gigerenzer G. Statistical Rituals: The Replication Delusion and How We Got There. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 1(2):198-218. (2018) doi:10.1177/2515245918771329
Gigerenzer, G. Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33: 587-606. (2004) 10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033
Glass GV. Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Res Synth Methods 6(3):221–231. (2015)
Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555(7695):175–182. (2018)
Hansen, C., Steinmetz, H. & Block, J. How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide. Manag Rev Q 72, 1–19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00247-4
Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 94(3):485-514. (2016). doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210.
Sattelmayer, M., Elsig, S., Hilfiker, R. & Baer, G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. BMC Med. Educ. (BioMed Central Ltd.) (2016).
Wagner G, Heise T.L, Stratil J.M et al. Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; 149, 154-164. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.022
Additional Files
Posted
Versions
- 2024-07-27 (2)
- 2024-07-26 (1)
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dr. Achraf Ammar, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Immanuel Schöllhorn (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
