J Mot Behav. 1979 Dec;11(4):275-9. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1979.10735197.
Journal of motor behavior
D D Larish, G E Stelmach
PMID: 23947811 DOI: 10.1080/00222895.1979.10735197
Under the guise of repetition effects, Gentile and Nemetz (1978) vociferously attack the explanatory power and utility of short-term motor memory research. Such a criticism is based on the belief that treatment effects are confounded with learning effects in experiments which require subjects to constantly reproduce invariant target positions. In this note a systematic critique of Gentile and Nemetz's logic and experimental evidence illuminates the questionable status of their position. It is argued that the Gentile and Nemetz findings actually oppose the existence of the procedural artifact they would have us consider. On the basis of methodological and logical arguments presented, it is concluded that a properly designed experiment need not be confounded by repetition effects. Finally, guidelines on both the manufacture and avoidance of repetition effects are suggested.
