Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 46, No.
1, 2014
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Specificity of Learning a Sport Skill to the Visual Condition
of Acquisition
Jalil Moradi1,2, Ahmadreza Movahedi2, Hamid Salehi2
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran. 2College
of Sport Sciences, University of Isfahan, Iran.
ABSTRACT. The authors’ main purpose was to determine whether
learning of a real-world sport skill (basketball free throws) is spe-
cific to the sources of afferent visual information available during
practice. Twenty-eight male high school students (inexperienced in
the experimental task) were randomly assigned to a full vision or
target only vision group. Participants trained under full vision or tar-
get only condition for 15 sessions. Following training, in immediate
tests, they were examined under full vision and then under target
only conditions. Ten days later, in delayed tests, they performed
the task under full vision and then under target only conditions.
Results showed both groups performed the task similarly across
the experimental period. Interestingly, it was found that immediate
and delayed retention performance is specific to the training visual
context. The groups’ performances dropped significantly when we
tested them at a visual condition that differed from what they had
experienced while learning the task. Performance of the task seemed
to have integrated with the visual information available during the
task acquisition. These findings provide evidence for the specificity
of practice hypothesis in the field of motor learning and control.
Keywords: basketball free throws, specificity of practice hypothesis,
vision
pecialists in the field of human motor behavior and
S sport psychology have been sharing many theoretical
approaches to provide athletes with some skills for achiev-
ing their optimal performances. The specificity of practice
hypothesis is one of those prominent theoretical approaches
(Henry, 1958/1968; Proteau, 1992). The hypothesis which
stems from Thorndike’s (1913) studies of identical elements,
and then introduced by Henry’s study of individual differ-
ences to the field of motor behavior holds that practice
environment that resembles retention environment results
in achieving optimal performance of a task. Identical ele-
ments theory of transfer proposed by Thorndike (1913) and
Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) claimed that the amount
of transfer in one condition would have on another would
be best established by the amount of elements that the two
conditions shared.
The specificity of practice hypothesis in the field of motor
behavior emerged from a series of studies in which the role of
visual information in performing motor tasks has been inves-
tigated as a function of the amount of practice participants
receive (Tremblay & Proteau, 1998). Proteau, Marteniuk,
Girouard, and Dugas (1987) provided first-hand empirical
support for the practice-specificity effect in controlling mo-
tor tasks. In Proteau et al.’s original work, the accuracy of
an aiming movement performed for 200 trials or 2,000 trials
practice in two visual conditions (full vision and target only)
was investigated. Experimenters provided participants with
17
knowledge of results regarding accuracy after each trial. Fol-
lowing acquisition, participants were transferred to the target
only condition with no feedback. The investigators found
that full vision training resulted in decreased accuracy in
the transfer test compared to the group that practiced under
the target only condition. More interestingly, the accuracy
deterioration was more profound for the 2,000-trial condi-
tion than for the 200-trial condition.
Investigators have widely documented the specificity of
practice effect across a wide variety of motor tasks includ-
ing key typing (Wright & Shea, 1991), aiming task (Isabelle
& Proteau, 2007; Proteau, Marteniuk, & Lévesque, 1992),
waveform production (Ivens & Marteniuk, 1997), video-
aiming task (Robin, Toussaint, Blandin, & Proteau, 2005),
powerlifting (Tremblay & Proteau, 1998), ball interception
task (Tremblay & Proteau, 2001), baseball batting (Scott
& Gray, 2007), and flexion-extension Movements (Blandin,
Toussaint, & Shea, 2008). Investigators have suggested that
performers develop a sensory-specific movement represen-
tation with practice so that the experimenters’ withdrawal of
visual information under which they practiced disrupts per-
formers’ ability to accurately perform the task (Krigolson,
Gyn, Tremblay, & Heath, 2006).
The specificity of practice hypothesis has failed to ob-
tain support from investigations of gross motor skills such
as power lifting (Bennett & Davids, 1995), beam walking
(Robertson, Collins, Elliott, & Starkes, 1994; Robertson &
Elliott, 1996), and one-handed ball catching (Whiting &
Savelsbergh, 1992; Whiting, Savelsbergh, & Pijpers, 1995).
Challenge to the specificity of practice hypothesis has also
come from investigations of relatively fine motor tasks such
as the directional aiming task (Bennett & Davids, 1997) and
manual aiming task (Bennett & Davids, 1998). Results of
those studies failed to show deteriorations of performance
following altering the visual conditions available during prac-
tice.
Investigators have explained why findings of some studies
were at odds with the specificity of practice hypothesis. Skill
level of the performer (Bennett & Davids, 1995; Robertson
et al., 1994), nature of the task (Bennett & Davids, 1995;
Whiting & Savelsbergh, 1992; Whiting et al., 1995), and
the dominant source of information available during practice
have been suggested to account for the occurrence of this
Correspondence address: Jalil Moradi, Department of Phys-
ical Education and Sport Sciences, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Pasdaran Street, Sanandaj, Iran. e-mail: jalil-
moradi@gmail.com
J. Moradi, A. Movahedi, & H. Salehi
controversy. Robertson et al. showed that expert gymnasts
were less reliant on visual information compared to novice
athletes. Their findings suggest that experienced individuals
use different sources of sensory information for movement.
Proteau, Tremblay, and DeJaeger (1998) suggested that elite
athletes may not be as dependent as novices on vision in
relatively simple and gross motor tasks such as powerlifting
and beam walking. Moreover, Bennett and Davids (1995)
found that the performance of skilled participants was not
affected by manipulation of visual feedback. They proposed
that visual feedback information is the main source of afferent
information for movement control in early stages of learning
but that it progressively substituted by other information such
as kinesthetic information. In motor tasks in which direct
vision of the limbs is not critical, intensive practice creates a
sensorimotor representation that is not reliant on vision.
All of the aforementioned studies have tried to determine
whether performance was specific to the visual condition
available during practice. However, in other areas of speci-
ficity, some studies have suggested that learning was specific
to auditory information or arousal state available during prac-
tice. Wright and Shea (1991) required participants to work
on learning specific patterns of key-pressing movements. The
participants were provided with an incidental auditory stim-
ulus for each pattern. In retention, participants were tested
with either the same auditory stimulus or a different stim-
ulus. Their performance in retention was maximal when
the same auditory stimulus was present. Movahedi, Sheikh,
Bagherzadeh, Hemayattalab, and Ashayeri (2007) found that
achieving peak performance depended on the resemblance
between the arousal state throughout training sessions and
the arousal state in retention.
To date, the majority of support for the specificity of prac-
tice hypothesis has been obtained from studies using labo-
ratory tasks (Ivens & Marteniuk, 1997). On the other hand,
the challenge to the specificity of practice hypothesis has
come from studies using motor tasks in which visual feed-
back information might not have been the dominant source of
information (Proteau et al., 1998). However, there has been
some debate as to whether specificity of practice hypothe-
sis holds for a real-world sport skill such as basketball free
throws in which visual feedback information is of outmost
importance. To address these gaps in the area, in the present
study our main goal was to determine whether learning of
basketball free throws is specific to the sources of afferent
visual information available during practice. To reach that
goal, we required two groups of participants to train under
a full vision or target only vision condition across acquisi-
tion sessions. After acquisition training, they switched to the
other visual condition and then switched back to the original
one. Ten days later, they performed the task at the original
visual condition and then switched once more. We examined
whether immediate and delayed performances were specific
to the visual condition that the participants experienced dur-
ing task acquisition. The finding that visual switching de-
creased performance in comparison with that at the visual
18
condition that participants experienced in acquisition would
support the specificity of practice hypothesis.
Method
Participants
We randomly selected 28 right-handed male high school
students (M age = 17.14 ± 0.75 years) for the study. All par-
ticipants were inexperienced at the experimental task. The
participants did not have visual problems (except corrected
vision) and participate in the study voluntarily (after obtain-
ing a written consent). The Committee for Ethical Consid-
erations in Human Experimentation of University of Isfahan
assessed and approved the experimental protocol.
Experimental Task
Basketball free throw test was used as the experimental
task. Performance data were coded using a three-point scor-
ing system. Shots that were successful, unsuccessful shots
but bounced off the rim or the board, and unsuccessful shots
without touching the rim or the board (air balls) were scored
2, 1, and 0, respectively. Similar coding systems have been
reliable in previous basketball shooting studies (Movahedi
et al., 2007).
Procedure
Before any research intervention and in a briefing session,
the correct method of performing the free throw skill in bas-
ketball was explained and then demonstrated by a skilled
coach. Then, the performance scoring system was explained
by one of the researchers. The participants were asked to
stand behind the free-throw line, and, without bouncing the
ball against the court, throw the ball toward the rim with their
dominant hand. After each throw, the coach gave feedback to
the participant about the throw. The maximum allowed time
for each throw was 5 s, and a violation of the time allowed
would lead to a score zero. By the end of the first session, the
pretest was performed and the participants were matched and
divided into two groups (n1 = n2 = 14) according to their
pretest score. In pretest, each participant performs 15 trials of
basketball free throws. Afterwards, group A practiced under
full vision. The court light was changed for group B and only
a projector lighted up the rim (Figure 1). The participants in
both groups practiced the task (15 trials in each session) for
15 sessions. The breaks between throws were 10 s. The prac-
tice was done three sessions in a week for five weeks. All the
conditions of skill acquisition except the court light were the
same for both groups. Two hours after the last session, im-
mediate tests (under full vision and target only vision) were
taken. Ten days later, the delayed tests were taken similarly.
The tests were carried out under conditions similar to prac-
tice sessions, with the difference that the participants did not
receive any augmented feedback on their throws and their
scores. The tests were first conducted in full vision condition
Journal of Motor Behavior

FIGURE 1. View of the training visual condition in target only vision group.
and then in target only visual condition so that it was con-
sidered as a retention test for one group but transfer test for
another one. In transfer tests, the participants who had prac-
ticed the task under target only condition were transferred to
full vision condition and those who had practiced under full
vision condition were transferred to target only condition. In
acquisition phase, in order to avoid the warm-up decrement,
the participants made five throws under the same visual con-
dition and then took the test, but in test phase, they made five
throws under the test visual condition.
Statistical Analysis
We used independent sample t tests to assess group differ-
ences at baseline. To evaluate the participants’ performance
in acquisition phase, we use a 2 Group (full vs. target only
vision) × 15 Training Session analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with repeated measures on the training sessions. To analyze
the data in the test phase, we use a 2 Group (full vs. target
only vision) × 2 Test Condition (full vs. target only vision) ×
2 Test Delay (immediate vs. delayed) ANOVA with repeated
measures on the last two factors. Also, in order to compare
the performance of participants on immediate retention tests
and immediate transfer test, and also on delayed retention
test and delayed transfer test, paired t test was used.
2014, Vol. 46, No. 1
Specificity of Learning to Vision
Results
At baseline, independent t test revealed no significant dif-
ferences in mean task scores between the two study groups,
t(26) = 0.11, p = .91. In acquisition phase, data were an-
alyzed with a 2 Practice Condition × 15 Practice Session
repeated measures ANOVA, where practice session repre-
sented the mean of 15 basketball free-throws scores. In the
acquisition, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had been violated for the main effect of practice
sessions, χ 2(104, the number of participants: 28, the number
of repeated measures: 15) = 187.10, p < .001. Therefore, de-
grees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–Geisser
estimates of sphericity (ε = .49). The results showed that
there was a significant main effect of the practice sessions,
F(6.91, 179.80) = 37.06, p < .001. Polynomial trend con-
trasts revealed significant linear, F(1, 26) = 269.99, p < .001,
partial η2 = .9, and quadratic, F(1, 26) = 10.36, p < .001,
partial η2 = .28, trend effect. No significant main effect of
group (training condition), F(1, 26) < 1, p = .82, partial η2 =
.002, and interaction effect, F(14, 364) < 1, p = .91, partial
η2 = .014, were found. This indicates that the groups im-
proved during the practice sessions, independent of practice
condition. Figure 2 shows the performance of the two groups
having practiced under full and target only vision conditions
on basketball free throw tests in acquisition phase.
19
J. Moradi, A. Movahedi, & H. Salehi
FIGURE 2. Performance scores of the experimental groups in pretest and acquisition sessions.
In the test phase, data were analyzed with a 2 Training
Condition (full vs. target only vision) × 2 Test Condition
(full vs. target only vision) × 2 Test Delay (immediate vs.
delayed) mixed design ANOVA with repeated measures on
the last two factors. The results showed that main effects of
the training condition, F(1, 26) = 1.22, p = .28, partial η2 =
.045, and test condition, F(1, 26) < 1, p = .75, partial η2 =
.004, were not significant. There was a significant interaction
effect between the training condition and the test condition,
F(1, 26) = 186.59, p < .001, partial η2 = .88. This indicates
that visual test condition had different effects on the learners’
basketball free-throws scores depending on which type of
training condition was used. In the analysis, main effect of
the test delay was significant, F(1, 26) = 59.74, p < .001,
partial η2 = .70, but interaction effect between the training
condition and the test delay was not significant, F(1, 26) <
1, p = .94, partial η2 = .04. Finally, there was a significant
three-way (training condition by test condition by test delay)
interaction effect, F(1, 26) = 21.08, p < .001, partial η2
= .45. The performance of the two groups in test phase is
demonstrated in Figure 3.
To investigate the effect of change in visual condition (vi-
sual switching) or whether visual condition integrates with
performance, we compared the mean score that the full vi-
sion group achieved in participants’ immediate retention test
20
with its mean score in their immediate transfer test, which we
administered when the group was in a target only condition.
We found a significant decrease, t(13) = 15.62, p < .001.
We also found a significant difference for the target only
group, which was initially tested in full vision condition and
then, in the immediate retention test, in target only condition,
t(13) = 6.14, p < .001.
To investigate whether the results obtained in the two im-
mediate tests persisted we compared the mean score that the
full vision group achieved in participants’ delayed retention
test with its mean score in their delayed transfer test, which
we administered when the group was in a target only con-
dition. We found a significant decrease, t(13) = 8.77, p <
.001. We also found a significant difference for the target
only group, which was initially tested in the full vision con-
dition and then, in the delayed retention test, in the target
only condition, t(13) = 4.79, p < .001.
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to determine
whether learning of a real-world sport skill (basketball free
throws) is specific to the sources of afferent visual informa-
tion available during practice. We found that immediate and
delayed retention performance is specific to the training vi-
Journal of Motor Behavior

FIGURE 3. Performance scores of the experimental groups in immediate and delay tests.
sual context. In immediate and delayed transfer, when the
visual conditions changed, participants’ performance in both
groups was significantly deteriorated. Our findings support
the specificity of practice hypothesis in motor learning and
control.
In acquisition phase, the results of data analysis showed
that participants in both groups improved in performance of
the basketball free throw. However, there was no significant
difference between the two groups in task performance dur-
ing the acquisition phase. Lack of difference in acquisition
between the two groups can probably be attributed to the fact
that participants of both groups were asked to employ their
peripheral visual system for motor control. Peripheral vision
is specific to motor control and is not sensitive to the light
in the environment, specifically when a closed motor skill
(a skill in which action occurs in a stable and predictable
environment) is performed (Schmidt & Lee, 2011). Hence,
it can be concluded that changes in peripheral visual condi-
tions, such as those in the present study, could not change the
perceptuomotor control of basketball free throw skill, which
is a closed skill.
In immediate and delayed tests, the results revealed a
significant interaction between training conditions and test
2014, Vol. 46, No. 1
Specificity of Learning to Vision
conditions. In other words, participants’ task performance
on the tests varied consistent with the visual conditions of
training. The participants showed a significantly poorer per-
formance on the transfer test (visual conditions of the test
varied from the visual conditions of training). These find-
ings support the specificity of practice hypothesis, suggesting
that both the test and training should bear similar conditions
for the participants to show their maximum acquired per-
formance.
A question that may arise here is why the performance
scores decreased by changing visual conditions in transfer
tests if peripheral vision is not dependent on light changes.
A probable explanation is that the participants became de-
pendent on the environmental information and visual con-
ditions in practice sessions through the acquisition phase.
Therefore, when participants underwent a different visual
condition in immediate and delayed transfer tests, their per-
formance scores decreased. For the participants of the present
study who did not have any previous experience of perform-
ing the task, the information obtained via visual feedback
dominated over that of other senses and the beginners got ac-
customed to the visual conditions. It seems that if there is not
sufficient practice or there is a low level of the skill, complete
21
J. Moradi, A. Movahedi, & H. Salehi
integration between the performance conditions and visual
information will not occur, and the perceptual-motor repre-
sentation resulting from the skill under question will not be
sufficiently robust. So, a slight change in the visual condition
will most probably decrease the performance score (Proteau
& Carnahan, 2001).
Also in immediate and delayed tests, the results showed
that the delayed test exerted a significant effect on task perfor-
mance although the interaction effect of training conditions
was not significant on the delayed test. This finding suggests
that, independent of training conditions, task performance
deteriorated in all participants over time. Some levels of task
performance during the acquisition phase and in immediate
retention test may relate to the contribution of temporary
variables.
The last previously mentioned finding is in agreement with
the practice specificity hypothesis and is in accordance with
most studies, which have evaluated this hypothesis by using
simple aiming tasks in laboratory environments (for more
details, see Proteau, 2005; Proteau & Isabelle, 2002). The
findings of the present study demonstrate that this hypoth-
esis is valid not only for laboratory tasks, but also for field
tasks. However, the hypothesis is under dispute for real tasks.
Bennett and Davids (1995) assessed the accuracy of power
lifting squat in beginners and skilled individuals under dif-
ferent visual conditions. Their findings showed that the per-
formance of skilled athletes did not change by manipula-
tion of visual conditions. This finding is not in agreement
with practice specificity hypothesis since, according to the
hypothesis; skilled individuals have experienced extensive
levels of practice with a special feedback source. Thus, we
expected a greater slump in elite than in novice athletes.
But in beginners, their findings are consistent with our re-
sults and participants’ performances decreased by changing
visual conditions.
Other similar studies, which used other tasks such as gym-
nasts’ movements on balance beam (Robertson et al., 1994)
and one-handed catching (Bennett & Davids, 1996), also did
not confirm practice specificity hypothesis. However, Pro-
teau et al. (1998) and Tremblay and Proteau (1998, 2001)
duplicated these studies using a different research method-
ology and concluded that practice specificity hypothesis is
valid for such tasks, and in order to test this hypothesis it is
better to have higher control over real sensory information
during practice.
According to the specificity of practice hypothesis, sen-
sory stores for vision and proprioception are separate at the
early stages of training. In such conditions, if one of the sen-
sory sources is removed, participants will employ the other
source of feedback. After training is continued, vision and
proprioception become integrated and an intermodal repre-
sentation of the expected outcomes will be formed. Thus, at
advanced stages of training, withdrawal of one of the sensory
information sources will lead to a decrease in performance
(Proteau, 1992). In another justification for the probable un-
22
derlying cause of practice specificity, Proteau (2005) stated
that
during the practice, among the set of afferent informa-
tion sources, use of the source which provides optimized
performance gradually becomes dominant over the use of
other sources. Then, elimination or change of the dom-
inant source will lead to significant decrease in perfor-
mance.
Generally, our findings indicate that visual conditions of
the practice can affect later performance. Khan and Franks
(2004) stated that frequent and continuous availability of vi-
sual information during practice and increased use of this
information will lead to overdependence on such informa-
tion and neglecting the processing of valuable sources of
internal feedback. Thus, although increasing the process of
visual feedback through visual clues and aids during the ac-
quisition phase of a motor skill can be helpful in guiding
movement of extremities, such processes should be avoided
or at least limited to the early stages of learning tasks (e.g.,
basketball free throws) whose successful performance does
not rely on visual guidance of the extremity (Khan & Franks,
2004).
The previously mentioned conclusions could be general-
ized only if the assessments carried out in the present study
are repeated for other motor and sports tasks under the same
conditions or with slight changes. However, the important
issue in learning most sports skills is maintaining the con-
ditions under which the beginners accomplish the highest
efficiency in the least possible time. This will be achieved
if the coach makes the skill acquisition condition as similar
as possible to the competition conditions. It was shown that
decreasing the light would lead to a decrease in performance
in basketball free throws. A basketball player may have to
perform a free throw under different conditions; thus, as the
athletes’ performance may decrease in a different visual con-
dition, basketball coaches are advised to plan and carry out
their practices under the same light condition as that of the
test condition, at least for beginners. The present study can
be repeated for different sports and sports tasks with higher
control over different variables and by employing different
methodologies. For instance, it is possible to select a skill that
is not possible to be practiced except in the practice sessions.
In the present study we evaluated the sensory characteristic
as an element of practice specificity. It is recommended that
further research be carried out on other forms of practice
specificity elements such as context and processing charac-
teristics as well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Professor Howard N. Zelaznik,
who introduced specificity effects in the field of motor behavior and
sport psychology to them.
Journal of Motor Behavior
 Specificity of Learning to Vision

REFERENCES Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R. G., Girouard, Y., & Dugas, C. (1987).
On the type of information used to control and learn an aiming
Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (1995). The manipulation of vision dur-
movement after moderate and extensive training. Human Move-
ing the powerlift squat: Exploring the boundaries of the speci-
ment Science, 6, 181–199. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(87)90011-X
ficity of learning hypothesis. Research Quarterly for Exercise
Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R. G., & Lévesque, L. (1992). A sensorimo-
and Sport, 66, 210–218.
tor basis for motor learning: Evidence indicating specificity of
Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (1996). Manipulating the informa-
practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section
tional constraints in one handed catching: How generalized is the
A, 44, 557–575.
specificity of learning hypothesis? The British Psychological So-
Proteau, L., Tremblay, L., & DeJaeger, D. (1998). Practice does
ciety Sport and Exercise Psychology Section Newsletter, 5, 21–
not diminish the role of visual information in on-line con-
25.
trol of a precision walking task: Support for the specificity of
Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (1997). The effect of task constraints on
practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 143–150.
the manipulation of visual information and the implications for
doi:10.1080/00222899809601331
the specificity of learning hypothesis. Human Movement Science,
Robertson, S., Collins, J., Elliott, D., & Starkes, J. L.
16, 379–390.
(1994). The influence of skill and intermittent vision on dy-
Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (1998). Manipulating peripheral visual
namic balance. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 333–339.
information in manual aiming: Exploring the notion of specificity
doi:10.1080/00222895.1994.9941689
of learning. Human Movement Science, 17, 261–287.
Robertson, S., & Elliott, D. (1996). Specificity of learning and
Blandin, Y., Toussaint, L., & Shea, C. H. (2008). Specificity of
dynamic balance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
practice: Interaction between concurrent sensory information
67, 69–75.
and terminal feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34,
Robin, C., Toussaint, L., Blandin, Y., & Proteau, L. (2005). Speci-
994–1000.
ficity of learning in a video-aiming task: Modifying the salience
Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs. generality in learning motor
of dynamic visual cues. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37, 367–376.
skill. In R. C. Brown & G. S. Kenyon (Eds.), Classical studies on
doi:10.1037/h0055392
physical activity (pp. 328–331). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning:
Hall. (Original work published 1958).
A behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics
Isabelle, M., & Proteau, L. (2007). Specificity of practice results
Publishers.
from differences in movement planning strategies. Experimental
Scott, S. A., & Gray, R. D. (2007). Specificity of practice in baseball
Brain Research, 183, 181–193.
batting. Paper presented at the Annual meeting for the North
Ivens, C. J., & Marteniuk, R. G. (1997). Increased sensitivity
American Society for Pyschology of Sport and Physical Activity.
to changes in visual feedback with practice. Journal of Motor
San Diego, CA.
Behavior, 29, 326–338.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology
Khan, M. A., & Franks, I. M. (2004). The utilization of visual
of learning (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
feedback in the acquisition of motor skills. In A. M. Williams &
University.
N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence
and practice (pp. 45–62). London, England: Routledge.
of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency
Krigolson, O., Gyn, G. V., Tremblay, L., & Heath, M. (2006). Is
of other functions: III. Functions involving attention, obser-
there “feedback” during visual imagery? Evidence from a speci-
vation and discrimination. Psychological Review, 8, 553–564.
ficityof practice paradigm. Canadian Journal of Experimental
doi:10.1037/h0071363.
Psychology, 60, 24–33.
Tremblay, L., & Proteau, L. (1998). Specificity of practice: The
Movahedi, A., Sheikh, M., Bagherzadeh, F., Hemayattalab, R.,
case of powerlifting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
& Ashayeri, H. (2007). A practice-specificity-based model of
69, 284–289. doi:10.1080/02701367
arousal for achieving peak performance. Journal of Motor Be-
Tremblay, L., & Proteau, L. (2001). Specificity of practice in a ball
havior, 39, 457-462. doi:10.3200/JMBR.39.6.457–462
interception task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Proteau, L. (1992). On the specificity of learning and the role of
55, 207–218. doi:10.1037/h0087367
visual information for movement control. In L. Proteau & D.
Whiting, H. T. A., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (1992). An exception that
Elliott (Eds.), Vision and motor control (Vol. 85, pp. 67–103).
proves the rule! In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
motor behavior II (pp. 583–579). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Proteau, L. (2005). Visual afferent information dominates other
North-Holland.
sources of afferent information during mixed practice of a
Whiting, H. T. A., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., & Pijpers, J. R. (1995).
video-aiming task. Experimental Brain Research, 161, 441–
Specificity of motor learning does not deny flexibility. Applied
456.
Psychology: An International Review, 44, 315–332.
Proteau, L., & Carnahan, H. (2001). What causes specificity of
Wright, D. L., & Shea, C. H. (1991). Contextual dependencies
practice in a manual aiming movement: Vision dominance or
inmotor skills. Memory and Cognition, 19, 361–370.
transformation errors? Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 226–234.
Proteau, L., & Isabelle, G. (2002). On the role of visual afferent
information for the control of aiming movements toward tar- Received March 3, 2013
gets of different sizes. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 367–384. Revised August 10, 2013
doi:10.1080/00222890209601954 Accepted August 22, 2013

2014, Vol. 46, No. 1 23

Copyright of Journal of Motor Behavior is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.