Department of Neurosciences and Movement Science, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Department of Neurosciences and Movement Science, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Gait Posture. 2021 Feb;84:182-186. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.12.015. Epub 2020 Dec 24.
Interference effects have repeatedly been demonstrated for simple motor tasks but not for the complex whole-body task of balancing. It was therefore assumed that different balance tasks are so specific that they do not elicit interacting adaptations; neither in a positive (contextual interference) nor in a negative way (disruption of motor consolidation).
Is a novel balancing task susceptible to interference if a similar balance task is learned shortly afterwards?
The common A-B-A interference intervention design was applied. Participants were assigned to one of four intervention groups that differed with respect to task B. All four groups performed postural task A on a rocker board device (6 series of 8 trials of 8 s). Shortly after completion of task A, participants performed their respective task B (postural wobble board (P-WB), ballistic force, accuracy) or rested (control group). 24 h later, all groups performed a retention test of task A consisting of one series of 8 trials. To test for interference, we calculated repeated mixed design analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
For the retention test, the ANCOVA revealed a significant TIME*GROUP interaction (p = .010), which was followed up by separate Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests for each group. These tests showed a significant performance decrease for the P-WB group (p = .016) but no change in performance for the other three groups.
In contrast to previous findings, our results indicate that the complex whole-body task of balancing is susceptible to interference, but only, when task B consists of a similar balance task. This is of great functional relevance as for example fall prevention programs incorporate many different balance tasks to prepare participants for all sorts of situations. In such interventions, it seems therefore advisable to apply a random instead of a blocked practice design.
干扰效应已在简单运动任务中反复得到证实,但在复杂的全身平衡任务中却没有得到证实。因此,人们假设不同的平衡任务非常特殊,不会引起相互作用的适应;无论是积极的(情境干扰)还是消极的(运动整合的破坏)。
如果随后学习类似的平衡任务,新的平衡任务是否容易受到干扰?
采用常见的 A-B-A 干扰干预设计。参与者被分配到四个干预组之一,这些组在任务 B 方面有所不同。所有四组都在摇板设备上进行姿势任务 A(6 组,每组 8 次,每次 8 秒)。完成任务 A 后不久,参与者执行各自的任务 B(姿势晃动板(P-WB)、弹道力、准确性)或休息(对照组)。24 小时后,所有组都进行了 A 任务的保留测试,由一个 8 次试验的系列组成。为了测试干扰,我们计算了重复混合设计的协方差分析(ANCOVA)。
对于保留测试,ANCOVA 显示时间*组间存在显著交互作用(p =.010),随后对每个组进行了单独的 Bonferroni 校正后测。这些测试表明,P-WB 组的表现明显下降(p =.016),而其他三组的表现没有变化。
与之前的研究结果相反,我们的结果表明,复杂的全身平衡任务容易受到干扰,但只有当任务 B 由类似的平衡任务组成时才会受到干扰。这具有重要的功能相关性,例如,跌倒预防计划包含许多不同的平衡任务,以使参与者为各种情况做好准备。在这种干预措施中,因此似乎最好采用随机而不是阻塞的实践设计。