Cargando…

Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Implicit motor learning is considered to be particularly effective for learning sports-related motor skills. It should foster movement automaticity and thereby facilitate performance in multitasking and high-pressure environments. To scrutinize this hypothesis, we systematically reviewed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kal, Elmar, Prosée, Rens, Winters, Marinus, van der Kamp, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30183763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203591
_version_ 1783353084659892224
author Kal, Elmar
Prosée, Rens
Winters, Marinus
van der Kamp, John
author_facet Kal, Elmar
Prosée, Rens
Winters, Marinus
van der Kamp, John
author_sort Kal, Elmar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implicit motor learning is considered to be particularly effective for learning sports-related motor skills. It should foster movement automaticity and thereby facilitate performance in multitasking and high-pressure environments. To scrutinize this hypothesis, we systematically reviewed all studies that compared the degree of automatization achieved (as indicated by dual-task performance) after implicit compared to explicit interventions for sports-related motor tasks. METHODS: For this systematic review (CRD42016038249) conventional (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Web of Science) and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers independently screened reports, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. Implicit interventions of interest were analogy-, errorless-, dual-task-, and external focus learning. Data analysis involved descriptive synthesis of group comparisons on absolute motor dual-task (DT) performance, and motor DT performance relative to single-task motor performance (motor DTCs). RESULTS: Of the 4125 reports identified, we included 25 controlled trials that described 39 implicit-explicit group comparisons. Risk of bias was unclear across trials. Most comparisons did not show group differences. Some comparisons showed superior absolute motor DT performance (N = 2), superior motor DTCs (N = 4), or both (N = 3) for the implicit compared to the explicit group. The explicit group showed superior absolute motor DT performance in two comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Most comparisons did not show group differences in automaticity. The remaining comparisons leaned more toward a greater degree of movement automaticity after implicit learning than explicit learning. However, due to an overall unclear risk of bias the strength of the evidence is level 3. Motor learning-specific guidelines for design and especially reporting are warranted to further strengthen the evidence and facilitate low-risk-of-bias trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6124806
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61248062018-09-16 Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review Kal, Elmar Prosée, Rens Winters, Marinus van der Kamp, John PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Implicit motor learning is considered to be particularly effective for learning sports-related motor skills. It should foster movement automaticity and thereby facilitate performance in multitasking and high-pressure environments. To scrutinize this hypothesis, we systematically reviewed all studies that compared the degree of automatization achieved (as indicated by dual-task performance) after implicit compared to explicit interventions for sports-related motor tasks. METHODS: For this systematic review (CRD42016038249) conventional (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Web of Science) and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers independently screened reports, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. Implicit interventions of interest were analogy-, errorless-, dual-task-, and external focus learning. Data analysis involved descriptive synthesis of group comparisons on absolute motor dual-task (DT) performance, and motor DT performance relative to single-task motor performance (motor DTCs). RESULTS: Of the 4125 reports identified, we included 25 controlled trials that described 39 implicit-explicit group comparisons. Risk of bias was unclear across trials. Most comparisons did not show group differences. Some comparisons showed superior absolute motor DT performance (N = 2), superior motor DTCs (N = 4), or both (N = 3) for the implicit compared to the explicit group. The explicit group showed superior absolute motor DT performance in two comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Most comparisons did not show group differences in automaticity. The remaining comparisons leaned more toward a greater degree of movement automaticity after implicit learning than explicit learning. However, due to an overall unclear risk of bias the strength of the evidence is level 3. Motor learning-specific guidelines for design and especially reporting are warranted to further strengthen the evidence and facilitate low-risk-of-bias trials. Public Library of Science 2018-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6124806/ /pubmed/30183763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203591 Text en © 2018 Kal et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kal, Elmar
Prosée, Rens
Winters, Marinus
van der Kamp, John
Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title_full Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title_fullStr Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title_short Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review
title_sort does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30183763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203591
work_keys_str_mv AT kalelmar doesimplicitmotorlearningleadtogreaterautomatizationofmotorskillscomparedtoexplicitmotorlearningasystematicreview
AT proseerens doesimplicitmotorlearningleadtogreaterautomatizationofmotorskillscomparedtoexplicitmotorlearningasystematicreview
AT wintersmarinus doesimplicitmotorlearningleadtogreaterautomatizationofmotorskillscomparedtoexplicitmotorlearningasystematicreview
AT vanderkampjohn doesimplicitmotorlearningleadtogreaterautomatizationofmotorskillscomparedtoexplicitmotorlearningasystematicreview