Terminal Feedback Outperforms Concurrent Visual,Auditory, and Haptic Feedback in Learning a Complex Rowing-Type Task

Augmented feedback, provided by coaches or displays, is a well-established strategy to accelerate motor learning. Frequent terminal feedback and concurrent feedback have been shown to be detrimental for simple motor task learning but supportive for complex motor task learning. However, conclusions on optimal feedback strategies have been mainly drawn from studies on artificial laboratory tasks with visual feedback only. Therefore, the authors compared the effectiveness of learning a complex, 3-dimensional rowing-type task with either concurrent visual, auditory, or haptic feedback to self-controlled terminal visual feedback. Results revealed that terminal visual feedback was most effective because it emphasized the internalization of task-relevant aspects. In contrast, concurrent feedback fostered the correction of task-irrelevant errors, which hindered learning. The concurrent visual and haptic feedback group performed much better during training with the feedback than in nonfeedback trials. Auditory feedback based on sonification of the movement error was not practical for training the 3-dimensional movement for most participants. Concurrent multimodal feedback in combination with terminal feedback may be most effective, especially if the feedback strategy is adapted to individual preferences and skill level.     

Increased Sensitivity to Changes in Visual Feedback With Practice

In recent work investigating motor learning, the focus has been on the effect of modifying feedback at different levels of learning. Results suggest that learning is specific to the practiced conditions and that this specificity increases with practice. In a replication and extension of this previous work, 3 groups (N = 30 subjects) practiced a sequential positioning movement: Controls performed 300 trials with visually presented on-line kinematic feedback, whereas the other 2 groups, low practice (LP) or high practice (HP), performed, respectively, 50 or 300 trials without feedback. Pretest and posttest sessions of 10 trials each were performed with the on-line feedback. All groups improved with practice. It was apparent that the HP group exhibited more of a performance decrement in the postest than the LP group did, suggesting that motor learning is the process of forming an increasingly specific sensorimotor representation. These results have implications for motor learning paradigms, models of motor learning, and training.     

Role of Constant,Random and Blocked Practice in an Electromyography-Based Oral Motor Learning Task

Purpose: The role of principles of motor learning (PMLs) in speech has received much attention in the past decade. Oral motor learning, however, has not received similar consideration. This study evaluated the role of three practice conditions in an oral motor tracking task.

Method: Forty-five healthy adult participants were randomly and equally assigned to one of three practice conditions (constant, blocked, and random) and participated in an electromyography-based task. The study consisted of four sessions, at one session a day for four consecutive days. The first three days sessions included a practice phase, with immediate visual feedback, and an immediate retention phase, without visual feedback. The fourth session did not include practice, but only delayed retention testing, lasting 10–15 minutes, without visual feedback.

Results: Random group participants performed better than participants in constant and blocked practice conditions on all the four days. Constant group participants demonstrated superior learning over blocked group participants only on day 4.

Conclusion: Findings indicate that random practice facilitates oral motor learning, which is in line with limb/speech motor learning literature. Future research should systematically investigate the outcomes of random practice as a function of different oral and speech-based tasks.     

Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback

The authors examined how the effectiveness of feedback for the learning of complex motor skills is affected by the focus of attention it induces. The feedback referred specifically either to body movements (internal focus) or to movement effects (external focus). In Experiment 1, groups of novices and advanced volleyball players (N = 48) practiced "tennis" serves under internal-focus or external-focus feedback conditions in a 2 (expertise) x 2 (feedback type) design. Type of feedback did not differentially affect movement quality, but external-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy of the serves than internal-focus feedback during both practice and retention, independent of the level of expertise. In Experiment 2, the effects of relative feedback frequency as a function of attentional focus were examined. A 2 (feedback frequency: 100% vs. 33%) x 2 (feedback type) design was used. Experienced soccer players (N = 52) were required to shoot lofted passes at a target. External-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy than internal-focus feedback did. In addition, reduced feedback frequency was beneficial under internal-focus feedback conditions, whereas 100% and 33% feedback were equally effective under external-focus conditions. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of effect-related, as opposed to movement-related, feedback and also suggest that there is a need to revise current views regarding the role of feedback for motor learning.     

Feedback and intention during motor-skill learning: a connection with prospective memory

The intention to complete an action in the future can improve the learning of this action, but it is unknown whether this effect persists when feedback is manipulated during encoding. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to learn a motor skill with or without intending to reproduce this learning in the future, and feedback on their movements was administrated by self-decision, that is, participants asked for feedback whenever they wanted it. The results showed that intention increased the frequency with which feedback was requested, but did not improve motor performance. In Experiment 2, participants had to learn the task with high or few feedbacks, which they could not control. In these conditions, intention was beneficial in promoting motor learning only for a low feedback schedule. We suggest that the beneficial effect of intention on learning can be overshadowed or emphasised by the feedback processing during encoding. These findings are discussed in light of theories surrounding prospective memory.     

Enhancing the Learning of Sport Skills Through External-Focus Feedback

The authors examined how the effectiveness of feedback for the learning of complex motor skills is affected by the focus of attention it induces. The feedback referred specifically either to body movements (internal focus) or to movement effects (external focus). In Experiment 1, groups of novices and advanced volleyball players (N = 48) practiced “tennis” serves under internal-focus or external-focus feedback conditions in a 2 (expertise) × 2 (feedback type) design. Type of feedback did not differentially affect movement quality, but external-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy of the serves than internal-focus feedback during both practice and retention, independent of the level of expertise. In Experiment 2, the effects of relative feedback frequency as a function of attentional focus were examined. A 2 (feedback frequency: 100% vs. 33%) × 2 (feedback type) design was used. Experienced soccer players (N = 52) were required to shoot lofted passes at a target. External-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy than internal-focus feedback did. In addition, reduced feedback frequency was beneficial under internal-focus feedback conditions, whereas 100% and 33% feedback were equally effective under external-focus conditions. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of effect-related, as opposed to movement-related, feedback and also suggest that there is a need to revise current views regarding the role of feedback for motor learning.     

Meta-analysis of the reduced relative feedback frequency effect on motor learning and performance

A fundamental motor learning principle conveyed in textbooks is that augmented terminal feedback frequency differentially affects motor learning and performance. The guidance hypothesis predicts that relative to a reduced frequency of feedback, providing learners with feedback following every practice trial enhances practice performance but degrades subsequent motor learning. This change in effectiveness for each relative feedback frequency is called a reversal effect, and because it is thought that practice variables can have distinct impacts on learning and performance, delayed retention tests are considered the gold standard in motor learning research. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to a) synthesize the available evidence regarding feedback frequency, performance, and motor learning to test whether there are significant changes in effectiveness from acquisition and immediate retention to delayed retention, b) evaluate potential moderators of these effects, and c) investigate the potential influence of publication bias on this literature. We screened 1662 articles found in PubMed and PsycINFO databases as well as with reference tracing and a targeted author search. A final sample of 61 eligible papers were included in the primary analysis (k = 75, N = 2228). Results revealed substantial heterogeneity but no significant moderators, high levels of uncertainty, and no significant effect of reduced feedback frequency at any time point. Further, multilevel analyses revealed no evidence of a significant change in effect from acquisition or immediate retention to delayed retention. Z-curve analysis suggested the included studies were severely underpowered. These results suggest that robust evidence regarding feedback frequency and motor learning is lacking.     

Average-KR schedule benefits generalized motor program learning

The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of average Knowledge of Results (KR) on generalized motor program learning and parameter learning. Two groups of participants (n = 15 per group) performed 80 acquisition trials of sequential timing tasks. All participants were asked to depress sequentially four keys (2, 4, 8, and 6) on the numeric pad portion of the computer keyboard with the index finger of the right hand. The author presented average feedback on timing errors based on 5-trial blocks and compared this feedback schedule with every-trial feedback. Analysis of the delayed no-feedback retention test indicated a strong advantage for the average KR compared with the every-trial condition in both generalized motor program learning and parameter learning. The current results suggest that the average KR schedule may have positive effects on generalized motor program learning and parameter learning.     

Aging affects motor learning but not savings at transfer of learning

Two important components of skill learning are the learning process itself (motor acquisition) and the ability to transfer what has been learned to new task variants (motor transfer). Many studies have documented age-related declines in the ability to learn new manual motor skills. In this study, I tested whether the degree of savings at transfer of learning is similarly affected by advancing age. Young and older adults made aiming movements with a joystick to hit targets presented on a computer screen, with real-time feedback display of their movement. They adapted to three different rotations of the feedback display in a sequential fashion, with return to the normal feedback display between each. Adaptation performance was better when it was preceded by other adaptive experiences, regardless of age.     

反馈类型和反馈时间对动作技能获得的影响

基于简单直线运动任务和复杂曲线追踪任务,在运动技能获得阶段考察不同反馈类型和反馈时间对操作绩效的影响。结果发现,在复杂曲线轨迹追踪任务中,接受运动轨迹反馈的被试组比接受偏差数值反馈组的成绩更好;即时反馈和延迟反馈组的操作绩效间没有显著差异。在简单直线运动任务中,提供落点偏差的图形反馈组成绩始终优于提供“近/远”信息的文本反馈组;在练习初期,即时反馈组成绩更好。说明,反馈信息的具体-抽象程度影响被试运动技能获得,提供具体直观的轨迹/图形反馈利于运动技能获得;反馈时间对运动技能的影响因任务难度而异。     

Does Narrative Feedback Enhance Children's Motor Learning in a Virtual Environment?

Augmented feedback has motivational and informational functions in motor learning, and is a key feature of practice in a virtual environment (VE). This study evaluated the impact of narrative (story-based) feedback as compared to standard feedback during practice of a novel task in a VE on typically developing children's motor learning, motivation and engagement. Thirty-eight children practiced navigating through a virtual path, receiving narrative or non-narrative feedback following each trial. All participants improved their performance on retention but not transfer, with no significant differences between groups. Self-reported engagement was associated with acquisition, retention and transfer for both groups. A narrative approach to feedback delivery did not offer an additive benefit; additional affective advantages of augmented feedback for motor learning in VEs should be explored.     

Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning

This study examined motivational effects of feedback on motor learning. Specifically, we investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a balance task (stabilometer). In addition to veridical feedback (error scores reflecting deviation from the target horizontal platform position) about their own performance after each trial, two groups received false normative information about the “average” score of others on that trial. Average performance scores indicated that the participant's performance was either above (better group) or below (worse group) the average, respectively. A control group received veridical feedback about trial performance without normative feedback. Learning as a function of social-comparative feedback was determined in a retention test without feedback, performed on a third day following two days of practice. Normative feedback affected the learning of the balance task: The better group demonstrated more effective balance performance than both the worse and control groups on the retention test. Furthermore, high-frequency/low-amplitude balance adjustments, indicative of more automatic control of movement, were greater in the better than in the worse group. The control group exhibited more limited learning and less automaticity than both the better and the worse groups. The findings indicate that positive normative feedback had a facilitatory effect on motor learning.     

Misconceptions and realities about teaching online

This article is intended to guide online course developers and teachers. A brief review of the literature on the misconceptions of beginning online teachers reveals that most accept the notion that putting one’s lecture notes online produces effective learning, or that technology will make education more convenient and cost-effective for all concerned. Effective online learning requires a high level of responsibility for learning on the part of students and a reduction of the teacher-student power differential. This, in turn, has major implications for faculty and course development, student selection criteria, the cost of instruction, and the outcomes of education. Effective online teaching focuses on processes of learning rather than outcomes, and is consistent with modern principles of learning that emphasize focusing on issues of high interest to learners, teaching students to use skills of active and effective learning, providing prompt feedback, and enabling students to establish learning goals and employ alternative paths to achieving those goals. Multiple ways of operationalizing these goals online are presented. Tips are offered concerning selection of students who are capable of benefiting from the online experience, developing curriculum that is user-friendly, using resources that stimulate good writing and critical thinking, and limiting class size to a manageable number.     

Dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning benefit

Giving learners control over their feedback schedule has been shown to enhance motor learning. This effect has been attributed to enhanced intrinsic motivation via fulfilling learners’ needs for feelings of autonomy and competence, and greater information processing through provoking learners to estimate their errors. However, there is a lack of studies dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning effect. To address this shortcoming, we crossed self-controlled feedback and error estimation in the same experimental design in the largest pre-registered self-control study to date (N = 200). Participants performed a nondominant arm bean bag tossing task under one of four training conditions in which feedback schedule was either controlled by the participant or matched to a counterpart and error estimation was either mandatory or not enforced. Learning was assessed 24 h after the acquisition phase in retention and transfer tests. Results showed no statistically significant learning advantage for participants given control over feedback despite promoting spontaneous error estimation, and, surprisingly, results showed a disadvantage specific to the transfer test for participants obligated to estimate their errors. Further, although self-control over feedback resulted in its delivery on relatively accurate trials and slightly increased learners’ perceived autonomy, it did not enhance perceived competence or intrinsic motivation. At the individual level, however, intrinsic motivation did predict motor learning. The present study challenges the benefit of self-controlled feedback while supporting the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on motor learning.     

Information processes in movement learning: capacity and structural interference effects

A series of experiments examined motor learning as an information processing activity occurring within a working short-term memory system and where response-produced feedback and knowledge of results (KR) are used to modify the action plan developed from previous attempts at the movement task. Use of interpolated activities in the KR delay interval allowed inferences to be made regarding the capacity and structural characteristics of these information processes. Results indicated no capacity limitations on the learning process but important structural effects were found. The results supported the idea that response-produced feedback is relatively unimportant as a feedback variable early in learning. Rather, the use of KR at a relatively high level of movement planning appears to be the important information processing activity underlying learning. Finally, the results supported the view that these information processes are related to cognitive problem solving activities.     

Information Processes in Movement Learning

A series of experiments examined motor learning as an information processing activity occurring within a working short-term memory system and where response-produced feedback and knowledge of results (KR) are used to modify the action plan developed from previous attempts at the movement task. Use of interpolated activities in the KR delay interval allowed inferences to be made regarding the capacity and structural characteristics of these information processes. Results indicated no capacity limitations on the learning process but important structural effects were found. The results supported the idea that response-produced feedback is relatively unimportant as a feedback variable early in learning. Rather, the use of KR at a relatively high level of movement planning appears to be the important information processing activity underlying learning. Finally, the results supported the view that these information processes are related to cognitive problem solving activities.     

Auditory–motor learning influences auditory memory for music

In two experiments, we investigated how auditory–motor learning influences performers’ memory for music. Skilled pianists learned novel melodies in four conditions: auditory only (listening), motor only (performing without sound), strongly coupled auditory–motor (normal performance), and weakly coupled auditory–motor (performing along with auditory recordings). Pianists’ recognition of the learned melodies was better following auditory-only or auditory–motor (weakly coupled and strongly coupled) learning than following motor-only learning, and better following strongly coupled auditory–motor learning than following auditory-only learning. Auditory and motor imagery abilities modulated the learning effects: Pianists with high auditory imagery scores had better recognition following motor-only learning, suggesting that auditory imagery compensated for missing auditory feedback at the learning stage. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 with melodies that contained greater variation in acoustic features. Melodies that were slower and less variable in tempo and intensity were remembered better following weakly coupled auditory–motor learning. These findings suggest that motor learning can aid performers’ auditory recognition of music beyond auditory learning alone, and that motor learning is influenced by individual abilities in mental imagery and by variation in acoustic features.     

Effects of normative feedback on motor learning are dependent on the frequency of knowledge of results

Studies on normative feedback have shown superior motor learning outcomes for individuals who believe that they are performing better than others through increased self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the effects of normative feedback were never dissociated from the knowledge of results (KR) provided to the learners which potentially interacts with self-efficacy as well. Thus, we investigated whether the effects of normative feedback on motor learning, associated with self-efficacy, would be dependent on the amount of KR provided. Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to four experimental groups in terms of KR frequency (100% and 33%) and normative feedback (positive and negative). In the acquisition phase, all groups received the average KR of their performance at the end of each block of trials (True feedback) and a fake KR based on their own performance (but said to be from a group of participants who practiced the same task) (False Feedback). The False Feedback indicated better or worse performance of the participant in comparison to the fake group, depending on their experimental group. Retention tests were performed immediately and after 24 h from the acquisition phase. To measure self-efficacy, a questionnaire on participant's efficacy was applied before the first block, after each block of trials and before the retention tests. The results revealed superiority of positive normative feedback and 100% KR frequency, compared to negative normative feedback and 100% KR frequency in the 24h retention test. No difference was found between the groups with a frequency of 33% of KR (positive and negative). All groups increased self-efficacy during practice, but there was no difference between groups at any stage of the study. We conclude that the effects of normative feedback on motor learning are dependent on the KR frequency. However, they were not associated with self-efficacy.     

Sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task

The role of different forms of feedback is examined in learning a novel motor task. Five groups of ten subjects had to learn the voluntary control of the abduction of the big toe, each under a different feedback condition (proprioceptive feedback, visual feedback, EMG feedback, tactile feedback, force feedback). The task was selected for two reasons. First, in most motor learning studies subjects have to perform simple movements which present hardly any learning problem. Second, studying the learning of a new movement an provide useful information for neuromuscular reeducation, where patients often also have to learn movements for which no control strategy exists. The results show that artificial sensory feedback (EMG feedback, force feedback) is more powerful than "natural" (proprioceptive, visual, and tactile) feedback. The implications of these results for neuromuscular reeducation are discussed.     

Sensory Feedback in the Learning of a Novel Motor Task

The role of different forms of feedback is examined in learning a novel motor task. Five groups of ten subjects had to learn the voluntary control of the abduction of the big toe, each under a different feedback condition (proprioceptive feedback, visual feedback, EMG feedback, tactile feedback, force feedback). The task was selected for two reasons. First, in most motor learning studies subjects have to perform simple movements which present hardly any learning problem. Second, studying the learning of a new movement can provide useful information for neuromuscular reeducation, where patients often also have to learn movements for which no control strategy exists. The results show that artificial sensory feedback (EMG feedback, force feedback) is more powerful than “natural” (proprioceptive, visual, and tactile) feedback. The implications of these results for neuromuscular reeducation are discussed.