↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying Contextual Interference and Its Effect on Skill Transfer in Skilled Youth Tennis Players

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantifying Contextual Interference and Its Effect on Skill Transfer in Skilled Youth Tennis Players
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Buszard, Machar Reid, Lyndon Krause, Stephanie Kovalchik, Damian Farrow

Abstract

The contextual interference effect is a well-established motor learning phenomenon. Most of the contextual interference effect literature has addressed simple skills, while less is known about the role of contextual interference in complex sport skill practice, particularly with respect to skilled performers. The purpose of this study was to assess contextual interference when practicing the tennis serve. Study 1 evaluated tennis serve practice of nine skilled youth tennis players using a novel statistical metric developed specifically to measure between-skill and within-skill variability as sources of contextual interference. This metric highlighted that skilled tennis players typically engaged in serve practice that featured low contextual interference. In Study 2, 16 skilled youth tennis players participated in 10 practice sessions that aimed to improve serving "down the T." Participants were stratified into a low contextual interference practice group (Low CI) and a moderate contextual interference practice group (Moderate CI). Pre- and post-tests were conducted 1 week before and 1 week after the practice period. Testing involved a skill test, which assessed serving performance in a closed setting, and a transfer test, which assessed serving performance in a match-play setting. No significant contextual interference differences were observed with respect to practice performance. However, analysis of pre- and post-test serve performance revealed significant Group × Time interactions. The Moderate CI group showed no change in serving performance (service displacement from the T) from pre- to post-test in the skill test, but did display improvements in the transfer test. Conversely, the Low CI group improved serving performance (service displacement from the T) in the skill test but not the transfer test. Results suggest that the typical contextual interference effect is less clear when practicing a complex motor skill, at least with the tennis serve skill evaluated here. We encourage researchers and applied sport scientists to use our statistical metric to measure contextual interference.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 39 31%
Psychology 14 11%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,357,503
of 25,818,700 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,745
of 34,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,922
of 341,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#121
of 613 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,818,700 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 613 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.