Does limiting pre-movement time during practice eliminate the benefit of practicing while expecting to teach?

Past research has revealed practicing and studying a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it to another person increases the amount of time participants spend preparing for movement during practice trials of the skill. However, it is unknown whether the increased motor preparation time explains the benefit of expecting to teach on motor learning. To address this question, we had participants practice golf putting with the expectation of teaching the skill to another participant the following day or the expectation of being tested on the skill the following day. We limited the motor preparation time for half of the participants who expected to teach and half of the participants who expected to test, and allowed the remaining participants to take as much motor preparation time as they liked. All participants were tested on their putting the next day. We predicted that participants who expected to teach would exhibit superior posttest performance, but this benefit would be exclusive to those participants who also practiced with unlimited motor preparation. Although the current data did not support this hypothesis, we also conducted an exploratory analysis in which we aggregated data from two prior experiments. This cumulative analysis suggested that expecting to teach does indeed enhance motor learning, but not through motor preparation during practice.     

Does learning a skill with the expectation of teaching it impair the skill’s execution under psychological pressure if the skill is learned with analogy instructions?

ObjectiveHaving learners practice a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it (versus an expectation of being tested on it) has been revealed to enhance skill learning. However, this improvement in skill performance is lost when the skill must be performed under psychological pressure due to ‘choking under pressure.’ The present study investigated whether this choking effect is caused by an accrual of declarative knowledge during skill practice and could be prevented if a technique (analogy instructions) to minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge during practice is employed.DesignWe used a 2 (Expectation: teach/test) x 2 (Instructions: analogy/explicit) x 2 (Posttest: low-pressure/high-pressure) mixed-factor design, with repeated measures on the last factor.MethodsOne-hundred fifty-six participants were quasi-randomly assigned (based on sex) to one of four groups. Participants in the teach/analogy and teach/explicit groups practiced golf putting with the expectation of teaching putting to another participant, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. Participants in the test/analogy and test/explicit groups practiced golf putting with the expectation of being tested on their putting, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. The next day all participants completed low- and high-pressure putting posttests, with their putting accuracy serving as the dependent variable.ResultsWe observed an Expectation x Instructions × Posttest interaction, such that a main effect of expectation was found in the low-pressure posttest, with the teach group exhibiting superior accuracy, and an Expectation × Instructions interaction was revealed for the high-pressure posttest. This interaction resulted from the teach group showing greater accuracy than the test group exclusively when receiving analogy instructions.ConclusionResults show that participants who practiced with the expectation of teaching exhibited superior learning and indicate that they choked under pressure likely due to their accrual of declarative knowledge during practice, since the choking effect was prevented by having them practice with analogy instructions. Accordingly, having learners practice with the expectation of teaching and techniques that minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge is recommended.     

Does learning a skill with the expectation of teaching it impair the skill’s execution under psychological pressure if the skill is learned with analogy instructions?

ObjectiveHaving learners practice a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it (versus an expectation of being tested on it) has been revealed to enhance skill learning. However, this improvement in skill performance is lost when the skill must be performed under psychological pressure due to ‘choking under pressure.’ The present study will investigate whether this choking effect is caused by an accrual of declarative knowledge during skill practice and could be prevented if a technique (analogy instructions) to minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge during practice is employed.DesignWe will use a 2 (Expectation: teach/test) x 2 (Instruction: analogy/explicit) x 2 (Posttest: high-pressure/low-pressure) mixed-factor design, with repeated measures on the last factor.MethodsA minimum of 148 participants will be quasi-randomly assigned (based on sex) to one of four groups. Participants in the teach/analogy and teach/explicit groups will practice golf putting with the expectation of teaching putting to another participant, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. Participants in the test/analogy and test/explicit groups will practice golf putting with the expectation of being tested on their putting, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. The next day all participants will complete low- and high-pressure putting posttests, with their putting accuracy serving as the dependent variable.     

The influence of robotic guidance on error detection and correction mechanisms

New technologies have expanded the available methods to help individuals learn or re-learn motor skills. Despite equivocal evidence for the impact of robotic guidance for motor skill acquisition (Marchal-Crespo, McHughen, Cramer, & Reinkensmeyer, 2010), we have recently shown that robotic guidance mixed with unassisted practice can significantly improve the learning of a golf putting task (Bested & Tremblay, 2018). To understand the mechanisms associated with this new mixed approach (i.e., unassisted and robot-guided practice) for the learning of a golf putting task, the current study aimed to determine if such mixed practice extends to one’s ability to detect errors. Participants completed a pre-test, an acquisition phase, as well as immediate, delayed (24-h), and transfer post-tests. During the pre-test, kinematic data from the putter was converted into highly accurate, consistent, and smooth trajectories delivered by a robot arm. During acquisition, 2 groups performed putts towards 3 different targets with robotic guidance on either 0% or 50% of acquisition trials. Only the 50% guidance group significantly reduced ball endpoint distance and variability, as well as ball endpoint error estimations, between the pre-test and the post-tests (i.e., immediate retention, 24-h retention, and 24-h transfer). The current study showed that allowing one to experience both robotic guidance and unassisted (i.e., errorful) performances enhances one’s ability to detect errors, which can explain the beneficial motor learning effects of a mixed practice schedule.     

Dimensions of movement specific reinvestment in practice of a golf putting task

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the role of the two dimensions of movement specific reinvestment (conscious motor processing and movement self-consciousness) in performance of a complex task early and later in practice. Furthermore, the study also examined the underlying kinematic mechanisms by which conscious motor processing and movement self-consciousness influence performance in practice.MethodsTrait measures of conscious motor processing and movement self-consciousness were obtained from participants using the Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale. Participants (n = 30) with no prior golf putting experience practiced 300 golf putts over the course of two days. Putting proficiency (number of putts holed) and variability of movement kinematics (SD impact velocity and SD putter face angle at impact) were assessed early and later in practice.ResultsMovement self-consciousness positively influenced putting proficiency early and later in practice by reducing variability of impact velocity and putter face angle at impact. Conscious motor processing positively influenced putting proficiency early in practice by reducing variability of impact velocity and putter face angle at impact. Later in practice, conscious motor processing was not associated with putting proficiency.ConclusionThe findings suggest that higher propensity for movement self-consciousness potentially influences performance early and later in practice by reducing variability of impact velocity and putter face angle at impact. A higher propensity for conscious motor processing benefits performance in a similar manner as movement self-consciousness early in practice but it does not seem to influence performance later in practice. The findings of the current study suggest that movement self-consciousness and conscious motor processing differentially influence performance at different stages in practice of a complex motor skill, suggesting that they might depict different types of conscious processing.     

Autonomy support and reduced feedback frequency have trivial effects on learning and performance of a golf putting task

Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning (OPTIMAL) Theory proposes that choices of any kind support an individual's need for autonomy, motivating them to learn and perform motor skills more effectively. Notably, the authors suggest asking learners to choose when to receive feedback in order to increase autonomy. Conversely, the guidance hypothesis predicts an impact of feedback schedule independent of motivational influences. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the relative and combined effects of autonomy and feedback schedule for the acquisition of a golf putting task without vision of results. Autonomy support (autonomy support vs. yoked) and knowledge of results (KR) schedule (100%-KR vs. 50%-faded-KR) were combined in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants (N = 56) in the autonomy support groups were asked to choose from three colours of golf balls for each putt during 10 acquisition blocks. Yoked groups were yoked to the golf ball colour choices of their autonomy support group counterparts. Participants in the 100%-feedback schedule groups were provided x- and y-coordinate KR following every putt during acquisition, while participants in the 50%-faded groups received KR after half of their putts, with feedback frequency decreasing over acquisition blocks. All participants completed a 24-h delayed retention and transfer test without KR. The results were somewhat consistent with OPTIMAL Theory yet the effects were not statistically significant and trivially small. The results were inconsistent with the guidance hypothesis.     

Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages

The present research assessed the potential effects of expecting to teach on learning. In two experiments, participants studied passages either in preparation for a later test or in preparation for teaching the passage to another student who would then be tested. In reality, all participants were tested, and no one actually engaged in teaching. Participants expecting to teach produced more complete and better organized free recall of the passage (Experiment 1) and, in general, correctly answered more questions about the passage than did participants expecting a test (Experiment 1), particularly questions covering main points (Experiment 2), consistent with their having engaged in more effective learning strategies. Instilling an expectation to teach thus seems to be a simple, inexpensive intervention with the potential to increase learning efficiency at home and in the classroom.     

An acute application of transcranial random noise stimulation does not enhance motor skill acquisition or retention in a golf putting task

Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is a brain stimulation technique that has been shown to increase motor performance in simple motor tasks. The purpose was to determine the influence of tRNS on motor skill acquisition and retention in a complex golf putting task. Thirty-four young adults were randomly assigned to a tRNS group or a SHAM stimulation group. Each subject completed a practice session followed by a retention session. In the practice session, subjects performed golf putting trials in a baseline test block, four practice blocks, and a post test block. Twenty-four hours later subjects completed the retention test block. The golf putting task involved performing putts to a small target located 3 m away. tRNS or SHAM was applied during the practice blocks concurrently with the golf putting task. tRNS was applied over the first dorsal interosseus muscle representation area of the motor cortex for 20 min at a current strength of 2 mA. Endpoint error and endpoint variance were reduced across the both the practice blocks and the test blocks, but these reductions were not different between groups. These findings suggest that an acute application of tRNS failed to enhance skill acquisition or retention in a golf putting task.     

Learning by Preparing‐to‐Teach and Teaching: A Meta‐Analysis

The present research meta‐analytically examined the effects of preparing‐to‐teach and subsequent teaching (relative to mere studying without teaching expectancy) on the acquisition of domain knowledge. The synthesis of 28 studies indicated that the estimated effect sizes (Hedges' gs) were 0.35 for preparing‐to‐teach and 0.56 for teaching with preparing‐to‐teach. Both preparing‐to‐teach and teaching with preparing‐to‐teach were effective in promoting deep learning (as well as surface learning) and even after a delay. The learning benefits of teaching with preparing‐to‐teach were larger when students expected and engaged in an interactive teaching activity than when they expected and engaged in a non‐interactive teaching activity. The mere expectation of interactive teaching also produced larger learning effects than the expectation of non‐interactive teaching. These results suggest that preparing‐to‐teach and teaching, interactive teaching after preparing to do so in particular, are useful for enhancing learning.     

Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning

Variability in practice has been shown to enhance motor skill learning. Benefits of practice variability have been attributed to motor schema formation (variable versus constant practice), or more effortful information processing (random versus blocked practice). We hypothesized that, among other mechanisms, greater practice variability might promote an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect, while less variability would be more conducive to a less effective internal focus on body movements. In Experiment 1, the learning of a throwing task was enhanced by variable versus constant practice, and variable group participants reported focusing more on the distance to the target (external focus), while constant group participants focused more on their posture (internal focus). In Experiment 2, golf putting was learned more effectively with a random compared with a blocked practice schedule. Furthermore, random group learners reported using a more effective distal external focus (i.e., distance to the target) to a greater extent, whereas blocked group participants used a less effective proximal focus (i.e., putter) more often. While attentional focus was assessed through questionnaires in the first two experiments, learners in Experiment 3 were asked to report their current attentional focus at any time during practice. Again, the learning of a throwing task was more effective after random relative to blocked practice. Also, random practice learners reported using more external focus cues, while in blocked practice participants used more internal focus cues. The findings suggest that the attentional foci induced by different practice schedules might be at least partially responsible for the learning differences.     

Beyond visual fixations and gaze behaviour. Using pupillometry to examine the mechanisms in the planning and motor performance of a golf putt

The present study assessed the potential value of using pupillometry to explore skill level differences in the allocation of attention during planning and performance of a golf putt across three putting conditions of varying complexity. Although numerous studies have reported on skill level differences in performers' visual search behaviours, performance accuracy and quiet eye duration (QE) across a range of performance settings, few have provided an objective measure of the allocation of attention during task performance. Fourteen participants were assigned to two groups [low handicap (LHG) and high handicap (HHG)] completing ten putts in three conditions; right to left (RL), left to right (LR) and straight (ST) from 1.75 m while wearing a mobile eye tracker. Skill based differences in the allocation of attention during green exploration and skill execution were observed. Pupil constriction observed for both groups during the QE period provides evidence of increased workload directly related to the increased motor task precision required in the physical performance of the putt. LHG had significantly more fixations of longer duration than their HHG counterparts. Distinct differences were also evident between skill levels in relation to number of fixations, fixation duration and QE duration on each putting condition. The significantly longer QE duration and larger pupil constrictions exhibited by skilled performers offer evidence of a distinctive concentration of cognitive activity characterised by highly automated processes.     

The Effect of Motor-Mental Preperformance Routines on Motor Performance in Novice Learners

Two sequential studies were conducted to test the notion that preperformance routines (PPRs) positively affect motor performance. The first study consisted of observations and interviews with 115 elite athletes to explore crucial time periods and body positions inherent in expert preparation for performing a golf putt, tennis serve, volleyball serve, and basketball free throw. In the second study, we taught these features of PPR to novice performers: 240 male and female high school students were assigned to two motor-mental PPR, and one control condition. Findings revealed that PPR enhances motor performance and can be implemented at an early stage of learning.     

Target-directed visual attention is a prerequisite for action-specific perception

Witt et al. (2008) have recently shown that golfers who putt with more success perceive the hole to be bigger than golfers who putt with less success. In three experiments, we systematically examined whether this phenomenon, labelled action-specific perception, depends on directing visual attention towards the action target. In Experiment 1 we replicated previously reported action-specific effects on perception in golf putting. In 3 and 4 we directly assessed whether action-specific effects on perception in golf putting are dependent on focusing visual attention on the target. To this end, the participants performed the putting task while visual attention towards the target was either completely withheld (Experiment 2) or divided over the target and other task-relevant objects (Experiment 3). No action-specific effects were found when visual attention towards the action target was occluded or partially diverted from the target. Together, our results provide evidence to suggest that focusing visual attention on the target while performing the action is a prerequisite for the emergence of action-specific perception.     

The implicit benefit of learning without errors

Two studies examined whether the number of errors made in learning a motor skill, golf putting, differentially influences the adoption of a selective (explicit) or unselective (implicit) learning mode. Errorful learners were expected to adopt an explicit, hypothesis-testing strategy to correct errors during learning, thereby accruing a pool of verbalizable rules and exhibiting performance breakdown under dual-task conditions, characteristic of a selective mode of learning. Reducing errors during learning was predicted to minimize the involvement of explicit hypothesis testing leading to the adoption of an unselective mode of learning, distinguished by few verbalizable rules and robust performance under secondary task loading. Both studies supported these predictions. The golf putting performance of errorless learners in both studies was unaffected by the imposition of a secondary task load, whereas the performance of errorful learners deteriorated. Reducing errors during learning limited the number of error-correcting hypotheses tested by the learner, thereby reducing the contribution of explicit processing to skill acquisition. It was concluded that the reduction of errors during learning encourages the use of implicit, unselective learning processes, which confer insusceptibility to performance breakdown under distraction.     

Cognitive mediation of putting: Use of a think-aloud measure and implications for studies of golf-putting in the laboratory

ObjectivesWhereas accounts of skilled performance based on automaticity (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Fitts & Posner, 1967) emphasize reduced cognitive involvement in advanced skill, other accounts propose that skilled performance relies on increased cognitive control (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). The objective of this study was to test predictions differentiating the automaticity and cognitive control accounts by assessing thinking during golf putting.DesignThe cognitive processes of less-skilled and more-skilled golfers were examined during putting using concurrent, think-aloud verbal reports. The design included putting conditions that differed in complexity and thus the need to adapt the putt to the particular conditions.MethodPutting complexity was manipulated via changes to putt length and perceived stress during putting. Putts were executed from two starting locations (i.e., the same starting location as the previous putt or a new starting location).ResultsThe analysis showed that, during putting: more thoughts were verbalized overall by more-skilled golfers than less-skilled golfers; both groups verbalized more thoughts overall during higher-complexity putts (i.e., longer distance putts, and putts under higher stress when executed from a new starting location) than lower-complexity putts; and the two groups did not differ significantly in the number of thoughts related to motor mechanics.ConclusionsThe results of this study provide support for a cognitive control account of skilled performance and suggest that the path to skilled performance involves the acquisition of more refined higher-level cognitive representations mediating planning and analysis.     

Effect of different external attention of focus instruction on learning of golf putting skill

The effect of different sources of external attentional focus on learning a motor skill was assessed in the present study. 30 students (12 men, 18 women) participated voluntarily and were divided, according to type of external focus, into target, club swing, and target-club swing groups. The task was a golf putting skill. The target focus group attended to the target (hole), the club swing focus group attended to the execution of the club's swing, and the target-club swing focus group attended to both. All participants performed 50 trials of the putting skill in the acquisition phase and 10 trials in the 24-hr. delayed retention phase. The dependent variable was the error in the putting skill measured as the distance from the hole to the ball after each strike. Results showed the target-club swing focus group had better scores in the acquisition and retention phases than the other groups. It was concluded that external focus instruction helped the learners to integrate target cue with action cue and is more effective in skill learning than other external-focus instructions. These results support the claims of ecological psychology theorists concerning the effects of external focus of attention.     

Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children

In a recent study by Chauvel, Wulf, and Maquestiaux (2015), golf putting performance was found to be affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion. Specifically, adult participants demonstrated more effective learning when they practiced with a hole that was surrounded by small circles, making it look larger, than when the hole was surrounded by large circles, making it look smaller. The present study examined whether this learning advantage would generalize to children who are assumed to be less sensitive to the visual illusion. Two groups of 10-year olds practiced putting golf balls from a distance of 2 m, with perceived larger or smaller holes resulting from the visual illusion. Self-efficacy was increased in the group with the perceived larger hole. The latter group also demonstrated more accurate putting performance during practice. Importantly, learning (i.e., delayed retention performance without the illusion) was enhanced in the group that practiced with the perceived larger hole. The findings replicate previous results with adult learners and are in line with the notion that enhanced performance expectancies are key to optimal motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).     

Imagery ability classification: Commentary on «Kinaesthetic imagery ability moderates the effect of an AO+MI intervention on golf putt performance: A pilot study» by McNeill et al. (2020)

McNeill et al. (2020) recently published a study that first aimed to assess the effect of a combination of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) on golf putt performance and then to determine if the evolution of this performance could be moderated by participants’ kinesthetic imagery ability. To assess golfers’ MI ability, the authors used the third version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Participants notably self-estimated their kinesthetic MI ability by using a Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 1 “very difficult to feel” to 7 “very easy to feel”. Athletes were categorized as either “poor” or “good” kinesthetic imagers, with mean scores of 4.93 and 6.63, respectively, in the intervention groups. Although a similar categorization procedure had previously been used in the literature for “good imagers”, the mean scores for “poor” imagers were much higher than those noted in previous studies evaluating the effect of MI ability on motor accuracy. Moreover, the low number of participants in the intervention group (n = 22) meant that participants were considered “poor” imagers even though their mean scores corresponded to “quite easy to feel” kinesthetic images of movements. This could notably explain the lack of differences between “poor” and “good” imagers in terms of putting performance in the intervention group. Despite these methodological limitations, the results of McNeill et al.‘s study show promising evidence for the efficacy of an AO plus MI intervention in relation to putting performance and should lead to further investigations. We suggest that research in the area of motor imagery ability include larger samples to explore, in individuals with very low imagery ability scores, the effects of the combination of AO and MI on motor performance.     

The influence of attentional focus on the development of skill representation in a complex action

ObjectivesRecent research has indicated that performers' mental representation of a motor skill changes over the course of learning. In the present study, we sought to ascertain whether the type of instructions (instructions that emphasize either an internal or external focus of attention) influences the development of skill representation during motor learning.DesignParticipants without golf experience were recruited to practice a golf putting task over the course of three training days. Participants were randomly assigned to either an internal focus (focus on the swing of the arms; n = 10) or external focus (focus on the speed of the ball roll; n = 10) learning group. Changes in putting performance and mental representation structure were assessed over the course of learning, as well as during a follow-up retention test two days after practice.MethodsMental representation structure was measured employing the structural dimensional analysis of mental representations (SDA-M), which provided psychometric data on the structure of the mental representation in long-term memory. Additionally, the change in putting accuracy and consistency was recorded over the course of learning.ResultsFindings indicated that the external focus group performed with greater accuracy and consistency during training, and revealed a larger degree of development in their mental representation of the putting task.ConclusionsOverall, our findings suggest that facilitating the link between an action and its effect by means of an external focus is crucial for motor performance as well as the development of skill representation.     

The role of effort in influencing the effect of anxiety on performance: Testing the conflicting predictions of processing efficiency theory and the conscious processing hypothesis

The aim of this study was to test the conflicting predictions of processing efficiency theory (PET) and the conscious processing hypothesis (CPH) regarding effort's role in influencing the effects of anxiety on a golf putting task. Mid‐handicap golfers made a series of putts to target holes under two counterbalanced conditions designed to manipulate the level of anxiety experienced. The effort exerted on each putting task was assessed though self‐report, psychophysiological (heart rate variability) and behavioural (pre‐putt time and glances at the target) measures. Performance was assessed by putting error. Results were generally more supportive of the predictions of PET rather than the CPH as performance was maintained for some performers despite increased state anxiety and a reduction in processing efficiency. The findings of this study support previous research suggesting that both theories offer useful theoretical frameworks for examining the relationship between anxiety and performance in sport.