Larish D D, Stelmach G E
a Motor Behavior Laboratory , University of Wisconsin-Madison.
J Mot Behav. 1979 Dec;11(4):275-9. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1979.10735197.
Under the guise of repetition effects, Gentile and Nemetz (1978) vociferously attack the explanatory power and utility of short-term motor memory research. Such a criticism is based on the belief that treatment effects are confounded with learning effects in experiments which require subjects to constantly reproduce invariant target positions. In this note a systematic critique of Gentile and Nemetz's logic and experimental evidence illuminates the questionable status of their position. It is argued that the Gentile and Nemetz findings actually oppose the existence of the procedural artifact they would have us consider. On the basis of methodological and logical arguments presented, it is concluded that a properly designed experiment need not be confounded by repetition effects. Finally, guidelines on both the manufacture and avoidance of repetition effects are suggested.
在重复效应的幌子下，金蒂莱和内梅茨（1978年）强烈抨击了短期运动记忆研究的解释力和实用性。这种批评基于这样一种信念，即在要求受试者不断再现不变目标位置的实验中，治疗效果与学习效果相互混淆。在本笔记中，对金蒂莱和内梅茨的逻辑及实验证据进行的系统批判揭示了他们观点的可疑之处。有人认为，金蒂莱和内梅茨的研究结果实际上与他们让我们考虑的程序假象的存在相悖。根据所提出的方法学和逻辑论证，得出的结论是，一个设计合理的实验不必受重复效应的困扰。最后，提出了关于制造和避免重复效应的指导方针。
