間隔效應是指練習過程中或保留測驗之前，透過間隔的介入，能有效促進學習。本研究以不同的間隔形式介入特定性練習中，觀察間隔之介入對空間性動作的表現與學習之影響。在特定性練習組別中，依據檢驗不同形式之間隔效應的目的，招募42名慣用右手之成年人，隨機分派至「特定」、「特定+間隔」、「序列變異」三組。經手臂外展之均質性考驗確認三組無起始行為差異後，進行線性移動實驗工作。本研究之依變項為絕對誤差(AE) 與變異誤差(VE) ，獲得期與保留測驗採獨立樣本單因子變異數分析。結果發現，在動作表現方面，「特定」組的AE值顯著低於「序列變異」組與「特定+間隔」組；「特定」組與「特定+間隔」組的VE值顯著低於「序列變異」組。在動作學習方面，「特定+間隔」組的AE值顯著低於「序列變異」組與「特定」組；「序列變異」組的AE值亦顯著低於「特定」組；三組在保留測驗的VE值則未達顯著差異。本研究的結論：（1）具有間隔介入之特定性練習，在動作的準確性與穩定性方面，無助於空間性的動作表現。（2）具有間隔介入之特定性練習，在動作的準確性方面，有助於空間性的動作學習。

Spacing effect is the introduction of space during practice or before retention test that can effectively promote learning. This study investigated practice of specificity effect on spatial movement performance and learning when different forms of space were introduced in the practice of specificity. To examine different forms of spacing in the practice of specificity groups, forty-two right hander adults were randomly assigned to three groups (specificity, specificity and space, and serial practice ). Homogeneity was confirmed through outward arm movement test among three groups before proceeding to linear positioning experimental tasks. Absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) were designed as dependant variables. One- way ANOVA was used to examine movement performance in acquisition. The results indicated that the AE value of specificity group was significantly lower (p < .05) than serial practice group and specificity + space group; The VE value of specificity group and specificity + space group were significantly lower (p < .05) than serial practice group. In retention test of learning effect: The AE value of specificity + space group was significantly lower (p < .05) than serial practice group and specificity group; the AE value of serial practice group was significantly lower (p < .05) than specificity group. The AE value of three groups in retention had no significantly difference (p > .05). The conclusion of this study: (1) the accuracy and stability of movement of specificity practice that had interfered space did not increase the spatial movement performance; and (2) The accuracy of movement of specificity practice had interfered space increased the spatial motor learning.

卓俊伶、簡曜輝、張智惠、楊梓楣、黃鱗棋（1998）。身體活動心理學與動作行為的發展概況與規劃。臺灣師大體育研究，5，117-130。

林靜兒、卓俊伶、張智惠、謝扶成（2003）。練習變異對兒童相對時宜工作表與學習的效應。臺灣運動心理學報，2，47-60。

陳俊伊（2009）。不同練習安排對類化動作程式與參數學習的影響。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。

葉俊良、卓俊伶、林靜兒、陳重佑（2007）。自我控制回饋對空間性動作表現、學習及錯誤估計的效應。大專體育學刊，9，23-35。

葛錦友（2003）。練習的變異性對籃球員罰球動作表現與學習的影響。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。

Adams, J. A., & Dijkstra, S. (1966). Short-term memory for motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 314-318.

Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-149.

Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41-74.

Arthur, M. G., & Steven, M. S. (1981). Spacing repetitions and solving problems are not the same. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 110-119.

Bachman, J. C. (1961). Specificity vs. generality in learning and performing two large muscle motor tasks. Research Quarterly, 37, 176-186.
Balota, D. A., Duchen, J. M., & Paullin, R. (1989). Age-related difference in the impact of pacing, lag, and retention interval. Psychology and Aging, 4, 3-9.

Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreing language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science,4, 316-321.

Barnett, M. L., Ross, D., Schmidt, R. A., & Todd, B. (1973). Motor skill learning and the specificity of training principle. Research Quarterly, 44, 440-447.

Blandin, Y., Toussaint, L., & Shea, C. H. (2008). Specific of practice: Interaction between concurrent sensory information and terminal feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition ,34, 994-1000.

Catalano, J. F., & Kleiner, B. M. (1984). Distant transfer in coincident timing as a function of variability of practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 851-856.

Cepeda, N. J.,Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19, 1095-1102.

Cuddy, L. J., & Jacoby. L. L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 451-467.

Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627-634.

Fairbrother, J.T., Shea, J.B., & Marzilli, T.S. (2007). Repeated retention testing effects do not generalize to a contextual interference protocol. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78,465.

Flanagan, H., & Spurgeon, P. (1996). Public sector managerial effectiveness: Theory and practice in the national health service. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Glenberg, A, M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95-112.

Glenberg, A. M., & Steven, M. (1981). Spacing repetitions and solving problems are not the same. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 110-119.
Green, R. L. (1990). Specing effects on implicit memory test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1004-1011.

Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. In R.C. Brown & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Classical studies on physical activity (pp. 341-340). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work published in 1958)

Khan, M. A., Frank, I. M., & Goodman, D. (1998). The effect of practice on component submovements is dependent on the availability of visual feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32, 227-240.

Krigolson, O. E., & Tremblay, L. (2009). The amount of practice really matters: Specificity of practice may be valid only after sufficient practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 197-204.

Lloyd, R. P., Richard, W., Meredith, K., & Dorothy, S. (1963). Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 206-209.

Lorraine, G. A. (1979). The perception of time. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 340-354.

Magill, R. A. (2004). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Magill, R. A. (1998). Knowledge is more than we can talk about: Implicit learning in motor skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 69, 104-110.

Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interaction effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.

Mentzer, J. T., & Konrad, B. P. (1991). An efficiency/effectiveness approach to logistics performance analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 12, 33-51.

Moxely, S. E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 65-70.

Newell, K. M., & Shapiro, D. C. (1976). Vailability of practice and transfer of training: Some evidence toward a schema view of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 233-243.

Pew, R. W. (1966). Acquisition of hierarchical control over the temporal organi-zation of a skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 764-771.

Proteau, L. (1992). On the specificity of learning and the role of visual information for movement control. In L. Proteau & D. Elliote (Eds.), Vision and motor control (pp. 67-103). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R. G., Girouard, Y., & Dugas, C. (1987). On the type of information used to control and learn an aiming movement after moderate and extensive training. Human Movement Science, 6, 181-199.

Proteau, L., Trembaly, L., & DeJaeger, D. (1998). Practice dose not diminish the role of visual information in online control of a precision walking task: Support for the specificity of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 143-150.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.

Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59-75). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2000). Motor learning and performance: A problem-based learning approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Shea, C. H., & Kohl, R. M. (1990). Specificity and variability of practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 169-177.

Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effect on the acquisition, retention and transfer of motor skill. Journal of Expermental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179-181.
Shea, C. H., Shebilske, W. L., & Worchel, S. (1993). Motor learning and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (1999). Enhancing training efficiency and
effectiveness through the use of dyad training. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31, 119-125.

Singer, R. N. (1966). Transfer effects and ultimate success in archery due to degree of difficulty of the initial learning. Research Quarterly, 37, 532-539.

Singer R. N. (1980). Motor learning and human performance: An application to motor skills and movement behaviors (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Sudit, E. F. (1996). Effectiveness, quality and efficiency: A management oriented approach. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single-subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Tremblay, L., & Proteau, L. (1998). Specificity of practice: The case of prowerlifting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 284-289.

Underwood, B. J. (1970). A breakdown of the total-time law in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 573-580.

Van der Meulen, P. R. H., & Spijkerman, G. (1985). The logistics input-output model and its application. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 15, 17-25.

Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Connition, 16, 677-691.

Wrisberg, C. A., & Ragsdale, M. R. (1979). Further tests of Schmidt’s schema theory: Development of a schema for a coincident timing task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 159-166.

Wulf, G., Lee, T. D., & Schmidt, R. A. (1994). Reducing knowledge of results about relative versus absolute timing: Differential effects on learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 362-369.

Yoshida, M., Cauraugh, J. H., & Chow, J. W. (2004). Specificity of practice, visual information, and intersegmental dynamics in rapid-aiming limb movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 281-290.