Motor Learning Theories: Frameworks for Skill Acquisition and Refinement

I. Introduction to Motor Learning

A. Defining Motor Learning: Processes and Outcomes

Motor learning is a fundamental aspect of human and animal behavior, enabling the acquisition and refinement of movements necessary for interacting with the world. It is broadly understood as a complex sequence of events within the brain, initiated by practice or new experiences, which culminates in modifications to the central nervous system (CNS).¹ These neural changes are what ultimately permit the execution of a novel motor skill.¹ More specifically, motor learning can be characterized as the brain’s mechanism for encoding automatic reactions into memory. This occurs through consistent engagement in a skill or action, repeated until it becomes deeply embedded within the brain and CNS.² The consequence of this repetition is a relatively permanent alteration in neural structures, allowing individuals to respond automatically in given situations without conscious deliberation.² This process is evident in countless daily activities, from driving a car to playing a musical instrument or simply ascending a flight of stairs.²

Synthesizing various perspectives, motor learning is the “process of acquiring a skill by which the learner, through practice and assimilation, refines and makes automatic the desired movement”.³ It is also conceptualized as “an internal neurologic process that results in the ability to produce a new motor task” and, more generally, “a set of internal processes associated with practice or experience leading to relatively permanent changes in the capability for skilled behavior”.³ These definitions consistently highlight several core attributes of motor learning. Firstly, it is an internal process, rooted in neurobiological changes. Secondly, these changes are relatively permanent, differentiating learned skills from transient fluctuations in performance. Thirdly, motor learning is driven by practice or experience, emphasizing the active role of the learner in interacting with tasks and environments. This distinction is critical, as it implies that true learning must be assessed beyond immediate performance improvements, looking instead for lasting changes in skill capability. The underlying neural adaptations, such as alterations in synaptic strength or structural changes in neural pathways, are the true markers of motor learning, even if they are inferred from behavioral changes.

B. The Importance of Theoretical Frameworks in Understanding Skill Acquisition

The study of how motor skills are acquired and refined is significantly advanced by the use of theoretical frameworks. Motor learning theories offer structured explanations for these processes, serving as essential guides for both research endeavors and practical applications in diverse fields such as physical education, sports science, neurology, and rehabilitation therapies.³ These theories provide a basis for interpreting “how learning or re-learning movement occurs” ⁴, moving beyond mere observation to an understanding of underlying mechanisms.

Theoretical frameworks in motor learning address critical variables that contribute to the development of skilled motor behavior. These include the principles of “motor program formation,” the “sensitivity of error-detection processes,” and the “strength of movement schemas”.³ By elucidating these factors, theories provide a foundation for developing effective intervention strategies aimed at improving motor skills.⁴ Thus, these theories are not merely abstract academic constructs; they are indispensable tools for practitioners. A robust theoretical understanding allows professionals to make informed decisions about instructional techniques or therapeutic interventions, moving beyond rote application to a more analytical and adaptable approach. This principled understanding helps explain why certain methods are effective and how they can be modified to suit individual learners or specific skill requirements.

C. Overview of General Stages of Motor Learning (Cognitive, Associative, Autonomous)

The acquisition of a motor skill typically unfolds through a sequence of stages, with one of the most widely recognized models being that proposed by Fitts and Posner in 1967. This model delineates three primary stages: cognitive, associative, and autonomous.²

1. Cognitive Stage: This initial phase is characterized by the learner’s efforts to understand the fundamental requirements of the task.² Performance during this stage often shows “large gains in performance” but is also marked by “inconsistent performance”.² Learners depend heavily on conscious thought, actively processing information from “verbal instructions and demonstrations”.⁷ They engage in “problem-solving and hypothesis testing” to identify effective movement strategies.⁷ Errors are frequent as individuals work to develop a basic understanding and execution of the movement pattern.² This phase can be described as the “‘fake it til you make it’ stage,” where external guidance and corrections are critical for progress.² The learner relies significantly on attentional resources and working memory to process task-relevant information.⁷
2. Associative Stage: As the learner progresses, the focus shifts from understanding the task to refining the movement pattern.² In this stage, the learner begins to assimilate “less verbal information and begins to make nuanced adjustments to their behavior”.² Performance gains may appear less dramatic than in the cognitive stage, but this is where skills are truly honed, and movement becomes more consistent and efficient.² Feedback, both intrinsic (sensory information from the body) and extrinsic (information from external sources like coaches or devices), plays a crucial role in shaping performance and fine-tuning technique.⁷ Cognitive demands gradually decrease as components of the skill become more automated.⁷ For individuals striving for expertise, such as elite athletes, this stage can be perpetual, involving continuous refinement and incremental improvements.²
3. Autonomous Stage: The final stage is reached when the motor skill becomes largely automatic, requiring minimal conscious attention for its execution.² Performance is characterized by consistency, efficiency, and a high degree of accuracy, often being resistant to interference from concurrent tasks.⁸ This level of automaticity is typically achieved after “sufficient repetitive practice”.² The learner can now allocate attentional resources to other aspects of performance, such as strategic decision-making in sports or adapting to environmental changes.⁸

These stages provide a valuable framework for understanding the learner’s progression and for tailoring instructional or therapeutic strategies to their current level of skill development.¹⁰ The nature of cognitive involvement changes dramatically across these stages. Early learning necessitates explicit, effortful cognitive processing, whereas later stages are characterized by more implicit, refined motor control. This progression has direct implications for how instruction, feedback, and practice should be structured. For instance, detailed verbal cues and demonstrations are highly beneficial in the cognitive stage but may be less effective or even disruptive once a skill has become more automatized in the autonomous stage.

II. Schmidt’s Schema Theory: Generalizing Movement

Richard Schmidt’s Schema Theory, proposed in 1975, offered a significant advancement in understanding how movements are learned, stored, and adapted. It addressed key limitations of earlier motor program theories, particularly the “storage problem” – how the brain could possibly store a unique program for every conceivable movement – and the “novelty problem” – how individuals can produce movements they have never performed before.¹¹

A. Core Concepts: Generalized Motor Programs (GMPs)

At the heart of Schmidt’s theory is the concept of the Generalized Motor Program (GMP).¹¹ Instead of storing countless specific movement patterns, the theory posits that the brain stores GMPs, which are “abstract representations of movement patterns that contain invariant features”.¹⁴ These invariant features are the fundamental characteristics of a movement class that remain relatively constant across different executions, such as the relative timing of muscle contractions, the sequence of actions, or the relative forces applied by different muscle groups.¹⁴ For example, the GMP for throwing would contain the essential sequence and relative timing of the arm and body movements, regardless of whether one is throwing a light baseball or a heavy shot put.

The GMP acts as a general template or a set of instructions for a class of movements. To produce a specific movement within that class, the GMP is parameterized. Parameters are the variable aspects of a movement that are specified for each execution, such as the overall force, overall duration (speed), and the specific muscles or limbs involved.¹⁴ For instance, the GMP for throwing can be adapted to throw a javelin by specifying parameters for high force and a particular arm trajectory, while the same GMP could be adapted with different parameters for a gentle toss of a ball to a child.¹⁴ This conceptualization allows for immense flexibility and versatility in movement production from a relatively limited set of stored GMPs, effectively addressing the storage problem by proposing that what is stored is an abstract rule set rather than myriad specific instances.

B. The Role of Recall and Recognition Schemas

To select an appropriate GMP and specify its parameters for a given situation, and to evaluate and refine movements, Schmidt proposed the existence of two memory structures called schemas. Schemas are abstract rules that are developed and strengthened through experience.¹¹ They are not memories of specific movements but rather relationships between different pieces of information associated with movement attempts.

1. Recall Schema: The recall schema is utilized before the initiation of movement.¹⁴ Its function is to select the appropriate GMP and to determine the specific parameters required to achieve the desired movement outcome in the current situation. The recall schema is formed by abstracting relationships between two types of information gathered from past experiences:

• Initial Conditions: This refers to information about the state of the environment and the performer’s own body prior to movement execution.¹¹ Examples include the performer’s position on a playing field, the location of teammates or opponents, the configuration of limbs, or the properties of an object to be manipulated. This essentially answers the question, “Where am I and what is the situation?”.¹⁴
• Response Specifications (Parameters): This involves information about the desired outcome of the movement and the parameters chosen in past attempts to achieve similar outcomes under similar initial conditions.¹¹ This answers the question, “What do I need to do?” or “How fast, how far, with what force should I move?”.¹⁴

2. Recognition Schema: The recognition schema is utilized during or after the movement to evaluate its effectiveness and to update the motor system.¹⁴ It allows the performer to assess whether the movement was performed as intended and whether the outcome was successful. The recognition schema is built upon relationships between two other types of information:

• Sensory Consequences: This is the sensory feedback experienced during and immediately after the movement, including proprioceptive information (how the movement felt), visual information (what the movement looked like), and auditory information.¹¹ For example, the feel of a firm grip on a tennis racket or the sensation of balance during a gymnastic routine.
• Response Outcome: This refers to the actual result of the action, often termed Knowledge of Results (KR).¹¹ For example, did the basketball pass reach the intended teammate, or did the golf ball land on the green?

With each movement attempt, these four pieces of information (initial conditions, response specifications, sensory consequences, and response outcome) are briefly stored in short-term memory and used to update and strengthen both the recall and recognition schemas.¹⁴ This continuous updating process means that learning is dynamic and adaptive; the schemas become more robust and accurate with more varied experiences, leading to improved movement selection, execution, and evaluation. Learning, therefore, is not simply about performing a movement but about actively processing these informational components to refine the underlying rules that govern future actions.

C. Learning Novel Movements and Skill Adaptation

A significant strength of Schema Theory is its explanation for how individuals learn novel movements and adapt existing skills to new situations.¹⁴ According to the theory, completely novel movements are rarely learned from scratch. Instead, individuals utilize existing GMPs and adapt them by applying new parameters selected via the recall schema, based on the novel initial conditions and desired response specifications.¹⁴ For instance, the fundamental motor program for an overhand throw, developed through experiences like throwing a baseball, can be adapted for throwing a javelin or even a crumpled piece of paper into a bin.¹⁴ The core invariant features of the throw remain, but the parameters (force, trajectory, release point) are modified.

Skill adaptation is a natural consequence of well-developed schemas. As an individual accumulates a wide range of experiences, their recall and recognition schemas become more refined and robust. This allows them to accurately select appropriate parameters for unfamiliar situations (via the recall schema) and to effectively evaluate and adjust their performance based on the sensory consequences and outcomes in those new contexts (via the recognition schema).¹⁴ The very nature of schemas as abstract rules implies their generalizability beyond specifically practiced instances. This capacity for transfer of learning and effective performance in novel or variable conditions is a hallmark of true skill acquisition and is elegantly accounted for by Schmidt’s framework, moving beyond simple repetition to explain how experiences are generalized into adaptable motor behavior.

D. Implications for Practice: The Value of Variability

One of the most influential practical implications stemming from Schema Theory is the emphasis on practice variability.¹³ The theory suggests that practicing a skill under a wide range of conditions is more beneficial for learning than practicing the exact same movement repeatedly. “Varying practice conditions encourages the learner to continually adapt their approach, leading to the development of more robust and flexible schemas”.¹⁴ This is because experiencing a diverse set of initial conditions, response specifications, sensory consequences, and response outcomes allows the learner to build stronger, more comprehensive, and more accurate recall and recognition schemas.

Coaches and instructors are encouraged to “vary practice conditions,” provide “frequent feedback” to help learners update their schemas, and explicitly “point out & explain to player when schema be used” in different contexts.¹⁴ For example, a basketball coach might have players practice shooting from various distances and angles, against different types of defenders, or when fatigued, rather than only practicing static free throws. This varied practice helps the player develop a schema for shooting that can be effectively applied in the unpredictable environment of a game.

The contextual interference effect, often discussed in conjunction with practice variability, further supports this notion. Research has shown that random practice schedules (where different skills or variations of a skill are practiced in an intermixed order) often lead to better long-term retention and transfer of learning compared to blocked practice schedules (where one skill or variation is practiced repeatedly before moving to the next), even though random practice might result in poorer performance during the acquisition phase.¹⁷ This is thought to occur because random practice “forces learners to reconstruct motor skills from memory” more frequently, thereby strengthening the schemas.¹⁷

While variability is key, some research also suggests that “both variable practice and constant practice are necessary to learn and perform movement-related tasks”.¹⁵ Constant practice (repeating a single task with no variation) might be useful for refining the details of a specific movement execution, particularly in the early stages or for very closed skills, while variable practice builds the adaptability and generalizability crucial for open skills and transfer.¹⁵ The theory, therefore, provides a strong rationale for moving away from purely repetitive drills towards practice designs that strategically incorporate variability to challenge the learner to adapt and generalize, though the optimal type and timing of this variability may depend on the skill and learner.

E. Strengths and Limitations

Schema Theory offers several significant strengths:

• It provides a plausible explanation for how motor skills are learned and generalized to new situations.
• It accounts for the ability to perform novel variations of movements.
• It offers a strong theoretical basis for the benefits of practice variability, which has been widely supported by empirical research.
• It addresses the “storage problem” by proposing GMPs and schemas rather than an infinite number of specific motor programs.

However, the theory also has limitations:

• It has been criticized for its “inability to account for the immediate acquisition of new types of coordination”.¹³ If schemas are built from experience, it is unclear how the very first GMP or schema for a completely novel class of movements is formed before any relevant experience has occurred. This is sometimes referred to as the “bootstrap problem” of schema development.¹³
• The theory “doesn’t explain how the first schema is developed, or why people can sometimes do entirely novel movements well” without apparent prior specific schema formation.¹³
• Some specific aspects, such as the precise nature and functioning of the recognition schema, have been subject to debate and re-evaluation.¹⁵
• The cognitive demands associated with forming, storing, and retrieving schemas, especially for highly complex skills or during the initial stages of learning, might be substantial, and the theory is less explicit about these cognitive processing requirements.

Despite these limitations, Schmidt’s Schema Theory remains a highly influential framework in motor learning, providing valuable insights into the mechanisms of skill acquisition and adaptation, particularly highlighting the importance of experience and practice structure. It suggests that other learning mechanisms might be at play, especially in the earliest phases of acquiring fundamentally new motor patterns, which the theory does not fully capture.

III. Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory: The Primacy of Feedback

Jack Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory, proposed in 1971, was a seminal contribution to the field of motor learning, representing one of the first comprehensive attempts to describe how simple motor skills are learned.⁹ The theory emerged as a response to perceived shortcomings in existing open-loop conceptions of motor behavior, placing a strong emphasis on the role of sensory feedback in guiding and refining movement.¹⁸

A. Core Components: Memory Trace and Perceptual Trace

Adams’ theory is predicated on the complementary operations of two distinct memory states, or “traces,” which are central to the learning and execution of a motor skill ¹²:

1. Memory Trace: This component is responsible for “selecting and initiating a given plan of action”.¹⁸ In essence, the memory trace selects the appropriate movement and gets it started. It is relatively weak at the beginning of learning and is strengthened through practice.
2. Perceptual Trace: This is arguably the more critical component in Adams’ theory for learning. The perceptual trace acts as an internal “reference model” or a “record of the movement made over many practices”.¹¹ It represents the sensory feel of the correct movement, particularly the sensory information associated with the limb being at the correct endpoint.¹² This trace is built up gradually through practice and becomes more accurate and robust as the learner experiences the sensory consequences of successful movements.¹³ It serves as the standard against which ongoing movements are compared.

The core of learning within Adams’ framework involves the strengthening and refinement of both these traces.¹⁸ Through repeated practice and the utilization of feedback to make corrections, the memory trace becomes more effective at initiating the correct movement, and the perceptual trace becomes a more accurate template of the desired sensory experience of that movement.

B. The Mechanism of Error Detection and Correction

A defining feature of Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory is its emphasis on a continuous feedback loop for error detection and correction.¹³ During the execution of a movement, and immediately afterward, the performer receives sensory feedback (e.g., proprioceptive, visual) and knowledge of results (KR) regarding the outcome of the action.¹⁸ This incoming feedback is then compared to the established perceptual trace.¹⁸

If a discrepancy or error is detected between the feedback from the current movement and the reference of correctness provided by the perceptual trace, the system initiates corrective actions.²⁰ “The perceptual trace then served as a comparator mechanism, comparing the movement in progress with a correct memory of the movement”.¹⁸ These corrections can be made during the movement itself if it is slow enough, or they can inform adjustments for subsequent attempts. This cyclical process of action, feedback, comparison against the perceptual trace, and error correction is fundamental to skill acquisition in this model. Learning is, therefore, an active error-nulling process, where the performer continually strives to reduce the mismatch between their actual movement and the internal representation of the correct movement. The more accurate and detailed the feedback, and the more developed the perceptual trace, the more effective this error correction mechanism becomes.

C. Emphasis on Slow, Precise Movements and Repetitive Practice

Adams’ theory is particularly well-suited to explaining the learning of slow, deliberate, and precise movements, such as linear positioning tasks, where there is sufficient time for sensory feedback to be processed and used for ongoing control and corrections.¹² The theory was largely developed and tested using such movements.¹⁸

A direct and significant clinical or instructional implication of this theory is the advocacy for highly specific and repetitive practice. To strengthen the correct perceptual trace, it is deemed “essential to have the patient practice the same exact movement repeatedly to one accurate end point”.¹³ Errors during the learning process are viewed as detrimental because they could lead to the strengthening of an incorrect or flawed perceptual trace.³ The idea is that each correct repetition, guided by accurate feedback, refines the internal template of the movement. This emphasis on exact repetition for a specific type of skill highlights both the theory’s focused applicability and its contrast with theories like Schmidt’s, which champion practice variability. This suggests that different classes of motor skills might indeed be learned through different underlying mechanisms, or that various theories capture distinct facets of a more intricate and multifaceted learning process.

D. Limitations: Accounting for Rapid Movements and Learning Without Continuous Feedback

Despite its contributions, Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory has several significant limitations that restrict its applicability as a general theory of motor learning:

• Rapid, Ballistic Movements: The theory struggles to explain the learning and execution of rapid, ballistic movements (e.g., a punch, a quick throw).¹³ These movements are often completed before sensory feedback can be processed and used for online correction, which is a central tenet of the closed-loop model.
• Learning Without Continuous Feedback: The theory’s heavy reliance on the continuous availability of feedback is challenged by evidence that humans and animals can learn and perform movements even when sensory feedback is absent or significantly reduced (e.g., through deafferentation studies or movements in the dark).¹³ The ability to perform movements in the absence of feedback contradicts the central role assigned to it by Adams.
• Novel Movements: The theory cannot adequately explain how novel movements are performed accurately for the first time, as it requires a pre-existing perceptual trace to serve as a reference of correctness.¹² If a movement has never been performed, no such trace would exist.
• Storage Capacity: The requirement of a one-to-one mapping between stored states (memory and perceptual traces) and the movements to be made raises concerns about the storage capacity of the central nervous system, similar to the criticisms faced by early, non-generalized motor program theories.¹² A vast repertoire of distinct traces would be needed for the multitude of skills humans can perform.
• Overuse of Specific Movement Types in Research: The empirical support for the theory was primarily derived from studies using slow, linear positioning tasks, which are not representative of the full spectrum of human motor capabilities, thus limiting the theory’s generalizability.¹⁸

In summary, the strong emphasis on closed-loop control and the indispensable role of feedback make Adams’ theory a valuable framework for understanding the acquisition of a specific subset of motor skills—namely, slow, precise movements where error correction is continuous. However, these same characteristics render it less suitable for explaining a broader range of motor behaviors, particularly those that are fast, predominantly open-loop, or entirely novel. This highlights the necessity for other theoretical perspectives to account for the diverse ways in which motor skills are learned and performed.

IV. Ecological Approaches: Learning Through Interaction

Ecological approaches to motor learning offer a distinct perspective, shifting the focus from internal, prescriptive representations like motor programs or memory traces to the dynamic interplay between the individual, the specific task they are performing, and the environment in which the action takes place.⁹ Influenced by the work of theorists such as J.J. Gibson, Nikolai Bernstein, and later researchers like Newell, Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey, these approaches are grounded in ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory.³

A. Fundamental Principles: The Individual-Task-Environment Triad

The cornerstone of ecological theories is the concept that motor behavior, including learning, emerges from the continuous and reciprocal interaction of three fundamental components: the individual (organism), the task, and the environment.⁴ Movement is not viewed as being solely dictated by a pre-programmed set of instructions issued by a central executive in the brain. Instead, functional movement patterns are seen as self-organizing solutions that arise from the specific confluence of these three interacting elements as the individual attempts to solve a motor problem.⁴

According to this perspective, “all of our actions are driven by what information we perceive in the environment” ²², and indeed, “all of the information you need to act already exists in the environment”.²³ This highlights a fundamental departure from information-processing theories that emphasize the construction and manipulation of internal representations. Instead, ecological approaches emphasize direct perception and the tight coupling of perception and action. The “intelligence” for guiding action is not solely located within the brain but is distributed across the entire organism-environment system. This perspective champions a more decentralized, embodied, and situated view of motor control and learning.

B. Key Concepts

Several key concepts underpin ecological approaches to motor learning:

1. Constraints (Organismic, Environmental, Task): Constraints are factors that limit, channel, or shape the possible movement solutions available to an individual.²² They are not necessarily negative but rather define the boundaries of the problem space within which movement solutions emerge. Constraints are typically categorized into three types:

• Organismic (or Individual) Constraints: These are characteristics internal to the performer, such as their physical attributes (e.g., strength, height, flexibility, fatigue levels), cognitive abilities (e.g., attention, memory, decision-making), emotional state, and motivation.⁴
• Environmental Constraints: These are factors external to the performer, related to the physical world (e.g., gravity, ambient light, temperature, altitude, properties of the supporting surface like friction or slope) or the socio-cultural context (e.g., peer pressure, expectations of spectators, cultural norms).⁴
• Task Constraints: These relate to the specific goals of the task, the rules governing the action (e.g., rules of a sport), and the implements or equipment used.⁴ The Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) is a practical application derived from this concept, particularly in coaching and rehabilitation. It involves the purposeful manipulation of these constraints by an instructor or therapist to guide the learner towards discovering and adopting more effective movement solutions.²²

2. Self-Organization and Attractor States: The motor system is viewed as a complex, non-linear dynamical system. Such systems possess the property of self-organization, meaning they can spontaneously coordinate their components and settle into stable, functional patterns of behavior (attractor states) in response to the prevailing constraints, without needing explicit, detailed instructions from a central controller or motor program.²² For example, when walking speed is gradually increased, the gait pattern spontaneously shifts from walking to running at a certain critical point; this new pattern (running) is an attractor state that is more stable and efficient at that speed. Learning, in this view, can involve the discovery of new attractor states, the stabilization of existing functional ones, or the destabilization of less functional ones to allow for a transition to a more optimal pattern.
3. Affordances and Perception-Action Coupling:

• Affordances, a concept introduced by J.J. Gibson, refer to the “opportunities for action that the environment offers to an individual, relative to that individual’s capabilities”.⁹ An affordance is not a property of the environment alone, nor of the individual alone, but emerges from their relationship. For example, a chair affords sitting for an adult human but may afford climbing for a toddler. A gap of a certain width affords stepping over for one person but may require jumping for another, or be an impassable barrier for a third. Learners are thought to directly perceive these affordances, meaning they pick up information from the environment that specifies potential actions without extensive cognitive processing or inference.
• Perception-Action Coupling is a central tenet, asserting that perception and action are inextricably linked and mutually influential.¹³ Perception guides action, providing the necessary information to shape and control movements in real-time. Conversely, actions generate new perceptual information that, in turn, modifies subsequent actions. As stated, “Your perception of the environment informs the way you act, and your action in turn changes the conditions of the environment”.²³ This continuous, reciprocal loop means that movements are constantly being adapted based on perceived information about the self and the environment.

These concepts provide a rich vocabulary for understanding how functional, adaptive movements emerge and are refined without relying on detailed, prescriptive internal representations. The system learns by becoming more attuned to relevant perceptual information that specifies affordances and by organizing itself effectively within the landscape of interacting constraints.

C. Learning as Discovery of Optimal Movement Solutions

From an ecological perspective, motor learning is fundamentally a process of exploration and discovery.¹³ Learners actively search for and stabilize optimal or functional movement solutions within their “perceptual-motor workspace” to satisfy the demands of the task under the influence of prevailing organismic, environmental, and task constraints. The emphasis is not on acquiring a single, idealized movement pattern that must be replicated perfectly. Instead, the focus is on “repeating the outcome, not the exact movement”.²² This idea is encapsulated in Bernstein’s concept of “repetition without repetition,” which suggests that skilled performers achieve the same goal through subtly varying movement patterns on each execution, allowing them to adapt to slight changes in conditions.²²

Learners “discover what perceptual cues are most important to achieving the task goal” and actively “explore the range of possible movements to select the most efficient/optimal movement strategy for the task”.¹³ This exploration involves trying out different ways of moving, experiencing the consequences, and gradually converging on solutions that are effective, efficient, and stable for that individual in that context. Variability in movement is not seen as error or noise to be eliminated, but rather as a crucial component of the exploratory process that allows the learner to discover the boundaries of functional movement and to develop adaptable strategies. This perspective fundamentally challenges traditional views of practice that emphasize rote repetition of a supposedly “ideal” technique, advocating instead for practice designs that encourage exploration, problem-solving, and the development of individualized, adaptable movement solutions.

D. Strengths and Implications for Dynamic Learning Environments

Ecological approaches to motor learning offer several strengths:

• They provide a strong account for the adaptability and flexibility of skilled behavior, particularly in dynamic and unpredictable environments.
• They emphasize the crucial role of the environment and the continuous interaction between perception and action, which aligns well with real-world motor performance.
• They offer a robust theoretical basis for designing learning environments that promote exploration, discovery, and problem-solving, such as the Constraints-Led Approach in coaching and rehabilitation.²²
• The concept of self-organization naturally handles the emergence of novel movement patterns and the inherent variability in human movement.

The primary implication for practice is the design of learning environments that are representative of performance contexts. This involves using realistic levels of variability and purposefully manipulating constraints to guide the learner’s discovery process.²² Coaches and therapists adopt the role of “guides” or “facilitators of learning” rather than prescriptive “instructors,” helping learners to find their own effective movement solutions.²²

However, ecological theories also face some limitations:

• They can be perceived as less precise in detailing the specific mechanisms of learning compared to more traditional information-processing theories. The abstract nature of concepts like “self-organization” or “attunement to affordances” can sometimes make direct, step-by-step prescriptive application challenging.¹³
• As a relatively newer paradigm in widespread application, it is sometimes considered “not easily applied to specific examples of motor skill acquisition” in a highly detailed manner.¹³
• Some critics argue that these approaches may downplay the role of internal cognitive representations, planning, and explicit knowledge, particularly in the learning of very complex skills or those requiring strategic forethought.²⁴

Despite these points, ecological theories are increasingly influential, offering a compelling framework for understanding motor learning, especially in complex, dynamic systems. They provide a valuable lens for appreciating how adaptable, functional behavior emerges from the rich interactions between an individual and their world. While translating these principles into concrete instructional designs requires careful thought, their philosophical underpinnings are reshaping approaches to skill acquisition in many domains.

V. Comparative Analysis of Motor Learning Theories

The three major theoretical frameworks discussed—Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory, Schmidt’s Schema Theory, and Ecological Approaches—offer distinct perspectives on how motor skills are acquired and refined. Understanding their core differences and similarities is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of the field.

A. Storage and Modification of Motor Programs/Representations

The theories diverge significantly in their conceptualization of what is learned and stored in memory:

• Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory: Proposes that what is learned are highly specific memory structures. The memory trace is responsible for initiating a particular movement, while the perceptual trace serves as a detailed sensory template or reference of correctness for that specific movement.¹³ Learning involves the strengthening and refinement of these individual traces through exact repetition and feedback.
• Schmidt’s Schema Theory: Contends that individuals store Generalized Motor Programs (GMPs), which are abstract representations for a class of actions, not specific movements.¹¹ Accompanying these are schemas (recall and recognition), which are abstract rules developed from experience. These schemas are used to select parameters for the GMP to produce a specific movement and to evaluate and update the rules based on outcomes. Learning involves the development and refinement of these general rules through varied practice.
• Ecological Approaches: Largely de-emphasize the notion of stored, prescriptive internal representations like programs or detailed templates.²² Instead, movement solutions are seen to emerge dynamically from the continuous interaction between the individual, the task, and the environment. Learning is viewed as a process of attunement, where the individual becomes more sensitive to perceiving relevant environmental information (affordances) and constraints, and more adept at self-organizing their actions to achieve task goals. What is “stored” might be better described as refined perception-action couplings or stable attractor states within the perceptual-motor landscape.

B. The Role of Sensory Feedback and Cognitive Processes

The role and nature of sensory feedback and cognitive involvement also differ markedly:

• Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory: Sensory feedback is paramount and is used continuously during slow movements to compare the ongoing action against the perceptual trace.¹³ This closed-loop control allows for real-time error detection and correction. Cognitive processes are primarily involved in this comparison and error evaluation.
• Schmidt’s Schema Theory: Feedback, in the form of sensory consequences and knowledge of results, is primarily used after a movement (or during for slower, modifiable movements) to update and refine the recall and recognition schemas.¹⁴ While GMPs can be run in an open-loop fashion for rapid movements, the schemas themselves are feedback-dependent for their development. Cognitive processes are crucial for abstracting the rules that form the schemas from diverse experiences.
• Ecological Approaches: Sensory information (perception) is not merely feedback to be compared with an internal model; it is an integral part of the perception-action cycle that directly guides and shapes action.²² Feedback is information that constrains future actions and helps the learner explore the perceptual-motor workspace. Cognitive processes are viewed less as internal model manipulation and more in terms of perceiving affordances, directing attention to relevant environmental cues, and engaging in problem-solving within the context of the individual-task-environment interaction. General research on motor learning highlights that strategic control is sensitive to goal-based performance error, while motor adaptation is sensitive to prediction errors between desired and actual consequences, suggesting different types of error signals drive learning, which can be mapped onto these theoretical frameworks.⁷

C. Explanatory Power for Different Types of Skills and Learning Stages

Each theory demonstrates strengths in explaining particular types of skills or aspects of the learning process:

• Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory: Is most effective at explaining the learning of slow, precise, continuous, or self-paced movements where there is ample opportunity for feedback to be processed and utilized for online corrections.¹³ It is less suitable for explaining rapid, ballistic skills, movements performed without feedback, or the acquisition of entirely novel skills. It tends to focus on the refinement stages of learning once a basic idea of the movement exists.
• Schmidt’s Schema Theory: Offers a better explanation for how a variety of skills are learned and adapted, including relatively rapid movements and novel variations of known skills, due to the concepts of GMPs and the emphasis on practice variability.¹³ It can account for learning across different stages through the progressive refinement of schemas.
• Ecological Approaches: Are particularly strong in explaining adaptive behavior in complex, dynamic, and unpredictable environments, and the learning of skills where many individual, task, and environmental factors interact.²² The emphasis on discovery, exploration, and self-organization makes it relevant across all learning stages as the learner searches for, discovers, and stabilizes functional movement solutions.

D. Emphasis on Practice Structure

The theories lead to contrasting recommendations for how practice should be structured:

• Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory: Advocates for precise, highly repetitive practice of the exact target movement to strengthen the perceptual trace.¹³ Errors are generally considered detrimental to this process as they might reinforce an incorrect trace.
• Schmidt’s Schema Theory: Strongly advocates for variable practice – practicing a skill under a wide range of conditions – to build robust and adaptable schemas that can be applied to many different situations.¹³ Errors are viewed as valuable learning opportunities that help refine the schemas.
• Ecological Approaches: Promote practice environments that manipulate constraints (task, individual, environmental) to encourage exploration and variability in movement solutions, allowing learners to discover what works best for them in a given context.²² The concept of “repetition without repetition” (achieving the same goal through different movement patterns) is central.

These fundamental differences in what is learned, how it is learned, and the consequent practice recommendations highlight that these theories are not merely variations on a single theme. They represent distinct paradigms for understanding motor learning. For instance, when considering the task of buttoning a shirt, Adams’ theory might suggest practicing with the exact same shirt and buttons repeatedly. Schmidt’s theory would imply practicing with the same style of shirt but with buttons of different sizes or textures. An ecological approach would involve practicing with entirely different styles of shirts and various types of buttons in different contexts (e.g., sitting, standing, different lighting).¹³ This illustrates how the theoretical lens directly shapes practical advice.

E. Comparative Overview of Motor Learning Theories

To further clarify these distinctions, the following table provides a comparative overview:

Feature	Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory	Schmidt’s Schema Theory	Ecological Approaches
Key Proponents	J.A. Adams	R.A. Schmidt	Newell, Gibson, Bernstein, Kugler, Turvey, Kelso
Core Mechanism of Learning	Strengthening of perceptual trace via feedback-driven error correction	Development & refinement of recall & recognition schemas through varied experience	Discovery & stabilization of optimal movement solutions via perception-action coupling & self-organization under constraints
Nature of Representation	Specific memory trace & perceptual trace (template for a movement)	Generalized Motor Program (GMP) & abstract schemas (rules)	No explicit stored prescriptive representation; perception-action pathways, attractor states
Role of Feedback	Essential for ongoing control & error correction (closed-loop)	Used to update schemas (KR, sensory consequences); can be open-loop for GMP execution	Information to guide exploration, constrain action, & attune perception to affordances
Practice Emphasis	Exact, repetitive practice; errors detrimental	Variable practice; errors are learning opportunities	Variable, exploratory practice; manipulation of constraints; “repetition without repetition”
Learning of Novel Movements	Limited; requires existing trace	Good; adaptation of existing GMPs via schemas	Good; exploration & self-organization within new constraint landscapes
Primary Strengths	Explains slow, precise movements; role of feedback in refinement	Explains skill generalization & adaptation; rationale for practice variability	Explains adaptability in dynamic environments; perception-action coupling; learning as discovery
Key Limitations	Struggles with rapid/ballistic movements, deafferented movements, novel skills, storage	How first schema/GMP is formed; can be cognitively demanding	Can be abstract; less prescriptive for specific interventions; may underplay cognitive planning
Best Explains	Slow, precise, self-paced skills; later stages of refinement	Skills requiring adaptation to varied conditions; learning generalizable rules	Complex, adaptive skills in dynamic environments; learning through exploration & interaction

This table serves as a concise summary, crystallizing the key differentiating factors and providing an accessible overview that complements the detailed textual explanations, thereby enhancing the utility of this report as an expert-level resource.

VI. Practical Applications and Implications

The theoretical frameworks of motor learning provide not only explanations for how skills are acquired but also valuable guidance for practical application across various domains, including sports coaching, physical rehabilitation, and ergonomics.

A. In Sports Coaching and Skill Instruction

The choice of coaching strategy can be significantly informed by motor learning theories, aligning the approach with the nature of the skill and the desired learning outcomes.

• Schmidt’s Schema Theory strongly supports the use of variable practice to develop adaptable athletes who can perform effectively in the diverse and often unpredictable conditions of competition.¹⁴ Coaches implementing this theory would design drills that incorporate variations in movement goals, environmental conditions, and task demands.¹⁵ For example, a tennis coach might have a player practice serves to different locations on the court, with varying speeds and spins, and against simulated opponent positions. Variable practice is thought to facilitate the transfer of skills and enhance adaptability to novel situations.⁸
• While Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory has limitations for many dynamic sports skills, its principles might find relevance in activities requiring extreme precision and consistency, such as archery, rifle shooting, or the putting stroke in golf. In these contexts, meticulous repetition of the exact movement, coupled with detailed feedback on minute errors, could be beneficial during the refinement stages to hone a highly consistent motor pattern.
• Ecological Approaches, particularly the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA), are gaining considerable traction in sports coaching.²² Coaches adopting this perspective act as “guides” or “facilitators” rather than prescriptive instructors. They achieve this by strategically manipulating task constraints (e.g., rules of a game, size of equipment, target area), environmental constraints (e.g., playing surface, number of opponents/teammates), and even organismic constraints (e.g., inducing fatigue before a drill) to encourage athletes to explore and discover their own effective movement solutions.²² The emphasis is on “repetition without repetition”—achieving the task goal through varied movement executions, fostering adaptability and creativity.²² For example, in soccer, a coach might reduce the width of the playing field to encourage quicker decision-making and more precise passing in tight spaces. General principles like tailoring coaching to the athlete’s stage of learning (cognitive, associative, autonomous) and designing practice sessions that mimic game scenarios are also vital for developing both open-loop (pre-planned) and closed-loop (feedback-adjusted) control.²⁶ Furthermore, in specialized skill instruction like singing, principles such as fostering motivation, engaging in perceptual training, using modeling judiciously, providing effective instruction and feedback, and helping the learner develop an internal reference-of-correctness are all direct applications of motor learning theory.²⁷

Ultimately, no single theory’s practice prescription will be optimal for all sports skills or all athletes. Effective coaching often involves a judicious blend of principles. For instance, while variability is crucial for adaptability (aligning with Schmidt and Ecological views), periods of more focused, constant practice might be used to refine specific technical components of a skill, echoing the idea of strengthening a “correct” pattern from Adams’ theory, even if not adhering to its full closed-loop mechanism.

B. In Physical Rehabilitation and Therapy

Motor learning principles are fundamental to modern physical rehabilitation, guiding therapists in designing interventions that help patients reacquire functional movements after injury or neurological damage. The focus is increasingly on “adapting treatment to the individual needs of a patient” within a “real-life context”.¹⁰

• Schmidt’s Schema Theory supports the practice of functional tasks under varied conditions to promote generalization of skills to daily life.¹³ For example, a patient relearning to walk might practice on different surfaces (carpet, tile, uneven ground), at different speeds, and while navigating obstacles. A patient recovering from a stroke might practice dressing with various types of clothing or transferring from surfaces of different heights.
• Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory, with its emphasis on precise repetition and feedback, might be applied cautiously in the early stages of rehabilitation for regaining control of slow, deliberate movements, especially if a clear target movement can be defined.¹³ However, the concern that errors could strengthen an incorrect perceptual trace necessitates careful application.³
• Ecological Approaches are highly influential in contemporary rehabilitation. Therapists manipulate task and environmental constraints to facilitate the patient’s rediscovery of functional movement patterns that work for their current capabilities.¹³ This often involves task-oriented activities that are meaningful to the client, such as practicing activities of daily living.¹⁰ For instance, instead of isolated muscle strengthening, therapy might involve practicing getting in and out of a simulated car or reaching for items on shelves of different heights. Therapists often use implicit cues with an external focus of attention (e.g., “reach for the cup” rather than “extend your elbow”) to encourage patients to develop their own kinematic solutions, which promotes better learning and retention.²⁹ Task difficulty can be systematically progressed or regressed by manipulating factors such as the base of support, speed of movement, presence of perturbations, cognitive demands, or type of surface.²⁸

Feedback remains a critical component, but its delivery is nuanced. While frequent feedback can improve performance during a therapy session, “providing feedback 100% of the time… is detrimental to learning” in the long term, as it can create dependency.²⁹ Reducing feedback frequency as the patient progresses encourages self-evaluation and error detection, fostering more robust learning.⁸ The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning, proposed by Wulf and Lewthwaite, also underscores the importance of motivational factors (enhancing autonomy and expectancies for success) and attentional factors (promoting an external focus) in optimizing rehabilitation outcomes.²⁸ These principles collectively guide modern rehabilitation towards more engaging, effective, and transferable interventions that promote active problem-solving and adaptability.

C. Considerations for Ergonomics and Workplace Skill Training

The principles of motor learning can also be effectively applied in the field of ergonomics, particularly in the design of prevention programs aimed at reducing musculoskeletal disorders and in training workers to perform tasks safely and efficiently.

• A structured approach, such as the “four-stage model” described by Jarus and Ratzon, explicitly incorporates motor learning principles.³⁰ This model includes:

1. Assessment: Analyzing the worker, task, and environment.
2. Basic Intervention: Group practice to acquire fundamental safety rules and correct body mechanics, based on motor learning principles to ensure retention and transfer.
3. Progressive Intervention: Ongoing, individualized programs to upgrade specific motor skills for particular workstations.
4. Follow-up: Assessing retention and transfer, and the overall efficacy of the program. The goal is to ensure that workers not only understand correct movement patterns but can also “retain and transfer the tasks to the setting and to prevent injury”.³⁰

• Ecological considerations are also relevant, as many traditional ergonomic studies may “widely neglect the constantly changing subjective information of the learner,” such as their age, prior learning experiences, and individual needs or preferences.³¹ An ecological perspective would emphasize designing work systems and training programs that account for these individual constraints and allow for some degree of movement variability or self-optimization within safe boundaries.
• Training programs should focus on active skill acquisition rather than passive information delivery. This involves structured practice, appropriate feedback, and opportunities for workers to refine their movements. For example, when teaching manual material handling techniques, workers could practice lifting objects of varying weights and sizes, with feedback on their posture and movement strategy, promoting the development of adaptable and safe lifting schemas.

By viewing workers as learners who need to acquire and refine motor skills for both safety and efficiency, ergonomic interventions can be significantly enhanced. This involves moving beyond simply redesigning tools or workstations to actively training workers using principles of practice design, feedback, and transfer derived from motor learning theories.

VII. Conclusion: Synthesizing Perspectives on Motor Learning

The exploration of motor learning theories reveals a rich and evolving understanding of how humans acquire and refine skilled movements. Each major theoretical framework—Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory, Schmidt’s Schema Theory, and Ecological Approaches—has provided invaluable contributions, illuminating different facets of this complex process.

A. Recap of Key Theoretical Contributions

Adams’ Closed-Loop Theory, one of the earliest comprehensive models, underscored the critical role of sensory feedback in guiding slow, precise movements and posited the memory and perceptual traces as the mechanisms for storing and referencing correct movements. Its emphasis on exact repetition for strengthening these traces highlighted the importance of error detection and correction in skill refinement for specific types of tasks.

Schmidt’s Schema Theory represented a significant step forward by addressing the limitations of specific motor programs. The introduction of Generalized Motor Programs (GMPs) and the recall and recognition schemas provided a robust explanation for how movements can be generalized and adapted to novel situations. This theory powerfully rationalized the benefits of practice variability in building flexible and robust motor skills.

Ecological Approaches, drawing from dynamical systems theory and ecological psychology, shifted the conceptual landscape by emphasizing the dynamic interaction between the individual, task, and environment. Concepts such as constraints, self-organization, affordances, and perception-action coupling offered a new lens through which to view learning not as the acquisition of internal representations, but as a process of discovery and attunement within the perceptual-motor workspace.

B. The Evolving Landscape of Motor Learning Theory

It is evident that no single theory provides a complete explanation for all aspects of motor learning. Each theory has its strengths in explaining certain types of skills or stages of learning, and also its limitations. The field has progressively moved towards more integrated perspectives. Contemporary research often acknowledges that multiple processes may be at play, and many current theories incorporate a Systems view, recognizing that movement results from the interaction of multiple distributed systems working in synchrony to solve a motor problem.⁴

There is increasing interest in understanding the interplay between explicit cognitive strategies and implicit motor adaptation processes.⁷ Learners may consciously decide on a movement strategy while their motor system simultaneously adapts to sensory prediction errors. Furthermore, newer approaches like Differential Learning, which advocates for a high degree of variability and even the performance of seemingly “erroneous” movements during practice, show promise in enhancing performance and are being explored for their theoretical underpinnings, often aligning with ecological principles of encouraging broad exploration of the movement landscape.³² The neural underpinnings of these learning processes are also a major focus of ongoing research, seeking to map theoretical constructs to brain structure and function.⁶

C. Future Directions in Motor Learning Research

The future of motor learning research is likely to involve several key directions:

1. Neurophysiological Validation: Continued investigation into the neural mechanisms that correspond to the constructs proposed by different theories (e.g., identifying the neural correlates of schemas, perceptual traces, or the processes of self-organization and affordance perception).
2. Integrated Models: Development of more comprehensive theoretical models that can effectively integrate principles from different frameworks to account for the wide spectrum of motor learning phenomena, from simple adaptations to complex skill acquisition across diverse populations and contexts.
3. Optimizing Learning Paradigms: Further research into how to optimally structure practice and feedback by blending principles from various theories, tailored to specific learner characteristics, task demands, and learning goals. This includes understanding the dynamic interplay of variables like practice variability, feedback frequency and type, and focus of attention.
4. Translational Research: A concerted effort to translate complex theoretical concepts into more accessible, evidence-based, and actionable guidelines for practitioners in coaching, education, rehabilitation, and ergonomics.

In conclusion, the study of motor learning is a dynamic and vital field. The theoretical frameworks developed over the past decades have profoundly shaped our understanding of skill acquisition. While each theory offers unique insights, the trend is towards a more holistic and integrated understanding that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of how we learn to move. By building upon and challenging existing paradigms, researchers and practitioners can continue to refine strategies that optimize the learning and re-learning of motor skills, ultimately enhancing human performance and quality of life.

Works cited

1. www.physio-pedia.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Motor_Control_and_Learning#:~:text=Motor%20learning%20is%20a%20complex,of%20a%20new%20motor%20skill.
2. The 3 Stages of Motor Learning | Strivr Blog, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.strivr.com/blog/the-stages-of-motor-learning
3. Motor Control and Learning – Physiopedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Motor_Control_and_Learning
4. Applying principles of motor learning and control to upper extremity rehabilitation – PMC, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3773509/
5. www.physio-pedia.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Motor_Control_and_Learning#:~:text=Theories%20of%20Motor%20Learning,-Motor%20learning%20is&text=Motor%20learning%20research%20considers%20variables,feedback%20and%20knowledge%20of%20results.
6. Motor Learning Unfolds over Different Timescales in Distinct Neural Systems – PMC, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4672876/
7. Cognitive Theory of Motor Learning | Motor Learning and Control Class Notes – Fiveable, accessed May 12, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/motor-learning-control/unit-3/cognitive-theory-motor-learning/study-guide/MZ4XIIe4660i6pVd
8. Study Guides for Unit 19 – Motor Learning and Control in Sports – Fiveable, accessed May 12, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/motor-learning-control/unit-19
9. Introduction | Motor Learning and Control Class Notes | Fiveable, accessed May 12, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/motor-learning-control/unit-1
10. Motor Control Vs. Motor Learning Approaches – Study Topic Overview – Pass The OT, accessed May 12, 2025, https://passtheot.com/study-topics/motor-control-vs-motor-learning-approaches-study-topic-overview/
11. Skill Development – BrianMac Sports Coach, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.brianmac.co.uk/tech.htm
12. Motor program – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_program
13. MA III theories of motor learning Flashcards | Quizlet, accessed May 12, 2025, https://quizlet.com/376347949/ma-iii-theories-of-motor-learning-flash-cards/
14. Schema Theory (Schmidt) Flashcards | Quizlet, accessed May 12, 2025, https://quizlet.com/gb/451731871/schema-theory-schmidt-flash-cards/
15. Schema Theory in Sports | A Deeper Look at Recognition Memory …, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.gloveworx.com/blog/schema-theory-in-sports/
16. Motor Programs & Schema Theory – TeachPE.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.teachpe.com/sports-psychology/motor-programs-schema-theory
17. Motor learning ppt – SlideShare, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/motor-learning-ppt/165550224
18. grants.hhp.uh.edu, accessed May 12, 2025, https://grants.hhp.uh.edu/clayne/4315videos/KIN4315vid/6adams.pdf
19. grants.hhp.uh.edu, accessed May 12, 2025, https://grants.hhp.uh.edu/clayne/HistoryofMC/Adams.pdf
20. Closed loop theory – Oxford Reference, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095618867?d=%2F10.1093%2Foi%2Fauthority.20110803095618867&p=emailAIWaLu4pWIgpc&print
21. Motor Learning Theories Flashcards | Quizlet, accessed May 12, 2025, https://quizlet.com/121481044/motor-learning-theories-flash-cards/
22. 038: The Ecological Approach to Skill Acquisition with Dr. Rob Gray …, accessed May 12, 2025, https://adamloiacono.com/038-the-ecological-approach-to-skill-acquisition-with-dr-rob-gray/
23. Ecological Approach Primer – GD4H – Game Design for HEMA, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.gd4h.org/index.php/2022/12/20/ecological-approach-primer/
24. Ecological Theory of Motor Control | Motor Learning and Control Class Notes – Fiveable, accessed May 12, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/motor-learning-control/unit-12/ecological-theory-motor-control/study-guide/MShvouoKWGB4hB6P
25. The role of strategies in motor learning – PMC, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4330992/
26. Motor Learning & Control In Athletic Performance – NSCA CSCS, accessed May 12, 2025, https://gifted-academics.com/motor-learning-and-control-nsca-cscs/
27. www.nats.org, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.nats.org/_Library/JOS_On_Point/JOS_077_5_2021_693.pdf
28. www.tc.columbia.edu, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/centers-amp-labs/lab-for-upper-airway-dysfunction/uad-research-papers/ASHA-2023-Motor-Learning-Master-Class-Slides.pdf
29. A Simple Guide to Motor Learning in Physical Therapy – CoreMedical Group, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.coremedicalgroup.com/blog/motor-learning-physical-therapy
30. Four-stage model | OT Theory, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ottheory.com/therapy-model/four-stage-model
31. Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using – MDPI, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/711
32. A critical review on the theoretical framework of differential motor learning and meta-analytic review on the empirical evidence – OSF, accessed May 12, 2025, https://osf.io/6jqeg_v1/download
33. Principles of Neural Science by Eric R. Kandel | Goodreads, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/532419
34. Principles of Neural Science, Sixth Edition – Amazon.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Sixth-Kandel/dp/1259642232