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

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.published_or_final_versio

Using a Delphi technique to seek consensus regarding definitions, descriptions and classification of terms related to implicit and explicit forms of motor learning.

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. METHODS: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a topic. RESULTS: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. DISCUSSION: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.Stichting Alliantie Innovatie (Innovation Alliance Foundation)RAAK-internationa

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

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: 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.Stichting Innovatie Alliantie (Innovation Alliance Foundation)RAAK-internationa

Multispectral images of peach related to firmness and maturity at harvest

wo multispectral maturity classifications for red soft-flesh peaches (‘Kingcrest’, ‘Rubyrich’ and ‘Richlady’ n = 260) are proposed and compared based on R (red) and R/IR (red divided by infrared) images obtained with a three CCD camera (800 nm, 675 nm and 450 nm). R/IR histograms were able to correct the effect of 3D shape on light reflectance and thus more Gaussian histograms were produced than R images. As fruits ripened, the R/IR histograms showed increasing levels of intensity. Reference measurements such as firmness and visible spectra also varied significantly as the fruit ripens, firmness decreased while reflectance at 680 nm increased (chlorophyll absorption peak)

Overview of effects of motor learning strategies in neurological and geriatric populations: a systematic mapping review

Systematic review protocol under review. Review Stage at time of this submission - Data analysis.This protocol was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) on 14 March 2024 and was last updated on 14 March 2024.Regieorgaan SI

Olive classification according to external damage using image analysis.

The external appearance of an olive’s skin is the most decisive factor in determining its quality as a fruit. This work tries to establish a hierarchical model based on the features extracted from images of olives reflecting their external defects. Seven commercial categories of olives, established by product experts, were used: undamaged olives, mussel-scale or ‘serpeta’, hail-damaged or ‘granizo’, mill or ‘rehús’, wrinkled olive or ‘agostado’, purple olive and undefined-damage or ‘molestado’. The original images were processed using segmentation, colour parameters and morphological features of the defects and the whole fruits. The application of three consecutive discriminant analyses resulted in the correct classification of 97% and 75% of olives during calibration and validation, respectively. However the correct classification percentages vary greatly depending on the categories, ranging 80–100% during calibration and 38– 100% during validation

Detection of freeze injury in oranges using magnetic resonance imaging under motion conditions

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is applied for on-line inspection of fruits. The aim of this work is to address the applicability of MRI for freeze injury detection in oranges directly on a distribution chain. Undamaged and damaged oranges are conveyed at 50 and 100 mm/s by a specially designed conveyor within a 4.7 T spectrometer obtaining fast low-angle shot images. An automatic segmentation algorithm is proposed that allows the discrimination between undamaged and damaged orange

Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if >= 70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.Peer reviewe

Is implicit motor learning preserved after stroke? A systematic review with meta-analysis

© 2016 Kal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients' automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved poststroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts

Stay focused! The effects of internal and external focus of attention on movement automaticity in patients with stroke

© 2015 Kal et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Dual-task performance is often impaired after stroke. This may be resolved by enhancing patients' automaticity of movement. This study sets out to test the constrained action hypothesis, which holds that automaticity of movement is enhanced by triggering an external focus (on movement effects), rather than an internal focus (on movement execution). Thirty-nine individuals with chronic, unilateral stroke performed a one-leg-stepping task with both legs in single- and dual-task conditions. Attentional focus was manipulated with instructions. Motor performance (movement speed), movement automaticity (fluency of movement), and dual-task performance (dual-task costs) were assessed. The effects of focus on movement speed, single- and dual-task movement fluency, and dual-task costs were analysed with generalized estimating equations. Results showed that, overall, singletask performance was unaffected by focus (p =.341). Regarding movement fluency, no main effects of focus were found in single- or dual-task conditions (p's ≥.13). However, focus by leg interactions suggested that an external focus reduced movement fluency of the paretic leg compared to an internal focus (single-task conditions: p =.068; dual-task conditions: p =.084). An external focus also tended to result in inferior dual-task performance (β = -2.38, p =.065). Finally, a near-significant interaction (β = 2.36, p =.055) suggested that dual-task performance was more constrained by patients' attentional capacity in external focus conditions. We conclude that, compared to an internal focus, an external focus did not result in more automated movements in chronic stroke patients. Contrary to expectations, trends were found for enhanced automaticity with an internal focus. These findings might be due to patients' strong preference to use an internal focus in daily life. Future work needs to establish the more permanent effects of learning with different attentional foci on re-automating motor control after stroke