Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point.

Methods

A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (? 70%) and trends (? 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey.

Results

Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner's abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34).

Conclusion

The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.

SUBMITTER: Kleynen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4546413 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey.

Kleynen Melanie M Braun Susy M SM Rasquin Sascha M C SM Bleijlevens Michel H C MH Lexis Monique A S MA Halfens Jos J Wilson Mark R MR Masters Rich S W RS Beurskens Anna J AJ

PloS one 20150821 8

<h4>Background</h4>A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and exp ...[more]

PMID: 26296203

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This paper seeks to contribute to a reputable evidence base for required competencies across different topics in statistics and probability (statistical topics) in preparing medical graduates for clinical practice. This is in order to inform the prioritization of statistical topics within future undergraduate medical curricula, while exploring the need for preparing tomorrow's doctors to be producers, and not merely consumers, of statistics. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive online survey from July 2013 to August 2014 for a target group of 462 medical graduates with current or prior experience of teaching undergraduate medical students of the University of Edinburgh of whom 278 (60.2%) responded. Statistical topics were ranked by proportion of respondents who identified the practice of statistics, performing statistical procedures or calculations using appropriate data, as a required competency for medical schools to provide in preparing undergraduate medical students for clinical practice. Mixed effects analyses were used to identify potential predictors for selection of the above competency and to compare the likelihood of this selection for a range of statistical topics versus critical appraisal. RESULTS:Evidence was gleaned from medical graduates' experiences of clinical practice for the need for, not only a theoretical understanding of statistics and probability but also, the ability to practice statistics. Nature of employment and statistical topic were highly significant predictors of choice of the practice of statistics as a required competency ((F?=?3.777, p?<?0.0005) and (F?=?45.834, p?<?0.0005), respectively). The most popular topic for this competency was graphical presentation of data (84.3% of respondents) in contrast to cross-over trials for the competency understanding the theory only (70.5% of respondents). Several topics were found to be more popular than critical appraisal for competency in the practice of statistics. CONCLUSIONS:The model of medical graduates as mere consumers of statistics is oversimplified. Contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere, statistical learning opportunities in undergraduate medicine should not be restricted to development of critical appraisal skills. Indeed, our findings support development of learning opportunities for undergraduate medical students as producers of statistics across a wide range of statistical topics.

Project description:Clinicians may use implicit or explicit motor learning approaches to facilitate motor learning of patients with stroke. Implicit motor learning approaches have shown promising results in healthy populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared with an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home regarding walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. This randomized, controlled, single-blind trial was conducted in the home environment. The 79 participants, who were in the chronic phase after stroke (age = 66.4 [SD = 11.0] years; time poststroke = 70.1 [SD = 64.3] months; walking speed = 0.7 [SD = 0.3] m/s; Berg Balance Scale score = 44.5 [SD = 9.5]), were randomly assigned to an implicit (n = 38) or explicit (n = 41) group. Analogy learning was used as the implicit motor learning walking intervention, whereas the explicit motor learning walking intervention consisted of detailed verbal instructions. Both groups received 9 training sessions (30 minutes each), for a period of 3 weeks, targeted at improving quality of walking. The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-Meter Walk Test at a comfortable walking pace. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and 1 month postintervention. No statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained postintervention (between-group difference was estimated at 0.02 m/s [95% CI = -0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated at -0.02 m/s [95% CI = -0.09 to 0.05]). Implicit motor learning was not superior to explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of implicit compared with explicit motor learning on a functional task in people after stroke. Results indicate that physical therapists can use (tailored) implicit and explicit motor learning strategies to improve walking speed in people after stroke who are in the chronic phase of recovery.

Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets