Resolving a conflict between sensory feedback and knowledge of results, while learning a motor skill

In a recent study, Buekers, Magill, and Hall (1992) showed that even when verbal knowledge of results (KR) was redundant with sensory feedback, erroneous KR influenced the learning of motor skills. To determine why this occurred, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, subjects performed 50 practice trials on a complex anticipation task and then performed three non-KR retention tests of 25 trials each. The results indicated that when correct KR and erroneous KR were provided alternately, subjects ignored the erroneous KR and performed according to the correct KR. Experiment 2 compared different ratios of no KR to erroneous KR. The results showed that, for low ratios (1:1 and 4:1), learning experience was similar to a condition in which erroneous KR was presented on all trials. For a higher ratio (9:1), however, learning performance was similar to performance when KR was correct on all trials or was not presented. These results are interpreted as support for the hypothesis that when two conflicting sources of information are available, the subject's degree of uncertainty about the valid source of information influences his selection of the information to guide performance.     

The Role of Task Experience and Prior Knowledge for Detecting Invalid Augmented Feedback while Learning a Motor Skill

Two hypotheses were investigated. These were generated from results reported by Buekers, Magill, and Sneyers (1994) and an uncertainty account of those and other effects on skill learning of erroneous knowledge of results (KR). The first hypothesis proposes that if experienced performers have developed the capability of detecting and correcting errors, then they should not be influenced by erroneous KR in the same way as novices. The second proposes that if information about the invalid feedback is given to subjects prior to the beginning of the practice trials, then the capability for assessing feedback can be accelerated such that subjects who receive this advance information should not be misled by the erroneous KR. The first hypothesis was investigated in Experiment 1 by having subjects practise an anticipation timing task for 450 trials. One group received correct KR on all trials, and another group received no KR. Half of the subjects in each group were unexpectedly switched to erroneous KR after 400 trials. Results indicated that the erroneous KR influenced both groups during acquisition and on a retention test one minute later. However, on a retention test given one week later, only the group that had practised with no KR before being switched to erroneous KR continued to show the negative influence of the invalid KR. The second hypothesis was examined in Experiment 2 by telling subjects prior to beginning practice trials that it was possible that the KR they received would be erroneous. Results showed that this intervention strategy was effective on the no-KR retention tests only for subjects who had no-KR trials alternated with trials on which they received the erroneous KR. The results of these experiments provide evidence that uncertainty about the validity of sensory feedback increases the likelihood that subjects will be misled by invalid augmented feedback. Moreover, this uncertainty can be overcome by increased experience or by providing advance knowledge about the nature of the invalid feedback.     

Relearning movements: modification of an incorrectly timed reversal movement.

The main purpose of this study was to examine if an inaccurately acquired motor response can be relearned through the provision of a limited number of correct KR trials. 26 subjects were assigned to one of three experimental groups: a no-KR group, an erroneous KR group, and a relearning group who were given correct KR after 125 trials of erroneous KR. Analysis showed a significant temporal correction of the reversal movement when the erroneous KR was replaced by valid verbal information during acquisition. This adaptation, however, was attenuated during retention, indicating that the limited number of correct KR trials did not wash out the effect of the invalid information provided during the first phase of acquisition.     

Motor Learning Without Knowledge of Results Through the Development of a Response Recognition Mechanism

Four experiments were conducted to investigate the ability of a response recognition mechanism, developed by presenting the sensory consequences associated with the criterion movement in the absence of actual movement recall, to produce motor learning in the absence of knowledge of results (KR). In Experiments 1 and 2, a rapid linear timing task was used (10.16 cm in 100 msec), and reduction of movement error resulted over no-KR practice trials. Experiments 3 and 4 employed a slow movement-time task (750 and 1250 msec) and a linear positioning task, respectively, and no reduction of movement error occurred over the no-KR practice trials in either experiment. The ability of the response recognition mechanism to produce motor learning in the absence of KR depended upon the extent to which feedback could be used during response production.     

Performance on trials without knowledge results (KR) in reduced relative frequency presentations of KR

Following Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter's (1984) discussion of knowledge of results (KR) as a variable influencing learning, the effect of varying relative frequency of KR while holding absolute number of trials constant was examined. In two experiments, the same treatment groups were compared in acquisition, retention (after 2 min and 24 hr), and on their pattern of responses on the sequence of no-KR trials following a KR trial. In Experiment 1, differences between groups in acquisition were consistent with the number of KR trials received, and there were no differences between groups in either of the retention conditions. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with a more difficult task. There were no between-group differences in acquisition. In Retention 1, the 100% and 33% relative frequency groups outperformed the less frequent KR groups, whereas in Retention 2, this trend was reversed. The findings from Experiment 2 provide qualified support for the hypothesis that reduced relative frequency of KR in acquisition facilitates performance in retention. The pattern of responses on the sequence of no-KR trials following a KR trial were consistent with Adams' (1971) perceptual-trace decay hypothesis.     

Average KR schedule in learning of timing: influence of length for summary knowledge of results and task complexity

This experiment investigated the influence of length for average Knowledge of Results (KR) and task complexity on learning of timing in a barrier knock-down task. Participants (30 men and 30 women) attempted to press a goal button in 1200 msec. after pressing a start button. The participant was assigned into one of six groups by two tasks (simple and complex) and three feedback groups (100% KR, Average 3, Average 5). The simple and complex tasks required a participant to knock down one or three barriers before pressing a goal button. After a pretest without KR, participants practiced 60 trials of physical practice with one of the three following groups as a practice phase: one given the result of movement time after every trial (100% KR), a second given the average movement time after every third trial (Average 3), a third given the average movement time after every fifth trial (Average 5). Participants then performed a posttest with no-KR and two retention tests, taken 10 min. and 24 hr. after the posttest without KR. Analysis gave several findings. (1) On the complex task, the absolute constant error (/CE/) and the variable error (VE) were less than those on the simple task. (2) The /CE/ and the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 groups were less than those of the Average 5 group in the practice phase, and the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 group were less than those of the Average 5 group on the retention tests. (3) In the practice phase, the /CE/ and the VE on Blocks 1 and 2 were higher than on Blocks 5 and 6. (4) On the retention tests, the /CE/ of the posttest was less than retention tests 1 and 2. And, the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 groups were less than that of the Average 5 group. These results suggest that the average feedback length of three trials and the given feedback information after every trial are advantageous to learning timing on this barrier knock-down task.     

The Scheduling of Knowledge of Results

The experiments outlined in this article were performed so that the acquisition effects of KR scheduling on no-KR retention could be determined. In Experiment 1, the group that alternated between 12 KR and 12 no-KR responses produced better retention than both the group that alternated between 6 KR and 6 no-KR responses and an all-KR group. The partial KR group that performed the best on retention also received the least number of reversals from KR to no-KR responses, however. In Experiment 2, when acquisition KR reversals ere held constant for partial KR groups, groups that received either random KR scheduling or all KR produced similar and better retention that groups who received blocked KR scheduling. These results were reconciled with KR frequency experiments by proposing that memory processes invoked by KR protocols decrease from KR frequency, to reversal, to scheduling conditions.     

Augmented Kinematic Feedback for Motor Learning

Although the study of feedback about goal achievement (knowledge of results, KR) has been important for the development principles of augmented information feedback in simple skills, there is reason to question the generalizability of these findings to many common learning situations. A more appropriate type of information for skill learning appears to be augmented kinematic (or kinetic) feedback regarding the movement pattern. The experiments presented here extend recent findings about KR to a paradigm involving kinematic feedback. In Experiment 1, we examined how several kinds of temporal and spatial kinematic information supplement KR in learning. Spatial kinematic variables were more effective than temporal variables, as indicated by performance in a retention test without kinematic feedback. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the schedule of augmented kinematic feedback in a method that paralleled previous KR work. We contrasted averaged schedules of augmented feedback, in which information was given either after every trial or as averaged information after every set of five trials. On retention tests without kinematic feedback given 1 day and 1 week after acquisition, averaged schedules led to enhanced performance over an every-trial format. Together, these results begin to define the variables important in kinematic feedback, and suggest that this feedback may influence learning in ways parallel to KR.     

When to Provide Knowledge of Results During Motor Learning: Scheduling Effects

On what basis should sources of information feedback be scheduled when de- livered to someone learning a motor skill? In two experiments, we examined the influence of several knowledge of results (KR) schedules on the acquisi- tion and retention of a multisegment movement timing task. In these experi- ments a blocked KR schedule was detrimental to both skill acquisition and retention, likely because the delivery of KR for one particular information source over repeated trials focused the learner on only that part of the action, rather than learning the whole action. In Experiment 1, we found that a ran- dom schedule produced better acquisition and retention performance than the blocked schedule. In Experiment 2, we attempted to optimize a schedule by delivering KR for the segment that had been performed most poorly. Al- though this performance-sensitive (P-S) manipulation resulted in better learning than under a blocked schedule, it was no better than a quasi-random, yoked control condition. These findings are discussed in terms of the nature of the action planning activities of the learner and how schedules of KR affect learner strategies.     

The independence of recall and recognition in motor learning

A basic tenet of both current closed-loop theories of motor learning (Adams, 1971; Schmidt, 1975) is that the generation of response specifications during learning is required for the development of recall memory. Two experiments were performed to test this tenet by attempting to demonstrate the development of recall memory in the absence of response specification production. The task in both experiments required blindfolded subjects to learn to produce a rapid, novel criterion movement on a linear positioning device. Control subjects in both experiments actively produced movements during learning with knowledge of results (KR) while experimental subjects in Experiment 1 experienced only the endpoint locations and in Experiment 2 were passively moved to the endpoint locations. Following initial KR trials, both experimental and control groups attempted to actively produce the criterion movement in the absence of KR. The results of both experiments support closed-loop theory that active practice is required to develop recall memory. There was some suggestion, however, that passive experience with sensory feedback may also aid recall memory development, contrary to the two closed-loop theories.     

Specificity of practice: interaction between concurrent sensory information and terminal feedback

In 2 experiments, the authors investigated a potential interaction involving the processing of concurrent feedback using design features from the specificity of practice literature and the processing of terminal feedback using a manipulation from the guidance hypothesis literature. In Experiment 1, participants produced (198 trials) flexion-extension movements to reproduce a specific pattern of displacement over time with or without vision of the limb position and with 100% or 33% knowledge of results (KR) frequency. The transfer test was performed without vision and KR. In Experiment 2, the authors assessed whether sensory information processing was modulated by the amount of practice. Participants performed 54 or 396 trials under a 100% or a 33% KR frequency with vision before being transferred to a no-vision condition without KR. Results of both experiments indicated that the Vision-33% condition suffered a larger detrimental effect of withdrawing visual information than the Vision-100% condition. Experiment 2 indicated that this detrimental effect increased with practice. These results indicated the reduction in terminal feedback prompted participants to more deeply process the concurrent visual information thus reinforcing their dependency on the visual information.     

Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis

Summary knowledge of results (KR) involves the presentation KR for each of a set of trials (e.g., 10) only after the last trial in the set has been completed. Earlier, Lavery (1962) showed that, relative to providing KR after each trial, a 20-trial summary KR was detrimental to performance in a practice phase with KR present but was beneficial for a no-KR retention test. Using a relatively simple ballistic-timing task, we examined summary lengths of 1 (essentially KR after every trial), 5, 10, and 15 trials, searching for an inverted-U relationship between summary length and retention performance as predicated by a guidance hypothesis for KR. During acquisition when KR was present and being manipulated, all groups showed improvements in performance across practice, while increased summary lengths generally depressed performance. However, in a delayed no-KR retention test, there was an inverse relation between the summary length in acquisition and absolute constant error on the retention test. A guidance hypothesis is favored to explain how, relative to immediate KR, long KR summaries can provide detrimental effects in acquisition while enhancing retention performance.     

A Comparison of Two References for Using Knowledge of Performance in a Motor Task

In the present study, the learning of a task in which the goal of the movement was not isomorphic with a specific movement pattern was examined. The subjects' (N = 48) goal in the task was to be both spatially and temporally accurate in reaching 4 targets with a right arm lever movement. After each acquisition trial, the displacement profile of the movement just produced was provided to all subjects as knowledge of performance (KP). The relative effectiveness of 2 possible references, with which subjects could compare the KP, was examined. One of the references examined was knowledge of results (KR), which was provided by reporting the total absolute timing and amplitude errors from the 4 targets. The other reference examined was a criterion template (CT), which was defined as the most efficient movement pattern for reaching the 4 targets. In the feedback display, CT was superimposed on the displacement profile of the movement just produced. A factorial design, in which 2 levels of KR (KR, no KR) were crossed with 2 levels of CT (CT, no CT), produced 4 feedback conditions. After 120 acquisition trials with feedback, immediate and delayed retention tests without feedback and a reacquisition test with KR (20 trials per test) were conducted. Acquisition results indicated that KR was a better reference than CT for per-forming the timing aspect of the movement and for producing the generalized motor program (GMP) associated with the most efficient movement pattern. Delayed retention results showed that KR was also a better reference than CT for learning the most efficient GMP. The calibration strategy undertaken by subjects who were provided with KR during acquisition explains the superiority of the KR reference. The calibration strategy is compared with the pattern-matching activity that was probably undertaken by subjects who had received CT as a reference.     

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.     

Examining the Preferred Self-Controlled KR Schedules of Learners and Peers During Motor Skill Learning

In many practical situations, learners are provided with feedback in the form of knowledge of results (KR) by a peer. However, when peers provide KR is currently unknown. When given the opportunity to request KR in a self-controlled manner, some participants have reported a preference for requesting KR after good performances. Alternatively, peers may provide KR in a different fashion. Subsequently, a discrepancy between the learner's desire to receive KR and when a peer provides KR may arise. In our study, peer- and self-controlled KR schedules were compared. Participants were peers who controlled KR (PC; 8), learners with peers (P-L; 8), or learners with self-control (SC; 8). Participants in the two learning groups (P-L and SC groups) completed a serial-timing task with a goal time of 2500 ms. Absolute error data on KR and no-KR trials along with self-reports indicate that participants with self-control preferred KR after good trials and peers preferred to provide KR after both good and bad trials equally. Results from the delayed retention test indicated that peer-controlled learners were more consistent (i.e., in terms of variable error) than the self-control group.     

The role of knowledge of results frequency in learning through observation

The authors examined whether reduced knowledge of results (KR) frequency during observation of a model's performance enhances learning. As they viewed a timing task, observers (n = 54) received KR about the model's performance on each trial (100% KR) or on 1 out of 3 trials (33% KR). Controls (n = 18) received only physical practice; they did not take part in the observation session. The authors also wanted to dissociate the guidance effect of KR during physical practice from the guidance role played by the representation acquired during observation. Therefore, following the observation phase, participants physically performed the task with either the same or a different KR frequency than that experienced during observation. The effects of observation and physical practice on learning were assessed in delayed retention tests. The beneficial effect of reduced KR frequency during observation continued for the following physical practice phases. Possible explanations as to why KR influences observational learning are discussed.     

Motor Learning as a Function of KR Schedule and Characteristics of Task-Intrinsic Feedback

Forty participants (age range = 18–35 years) practiced 1 of 2 versions of an aiming task (with or without spring resistance). Knowledge of results (KR) was provided to them either immediately or after a delay of 2 trials. Immediate KR led to significantly more accurate performance during the 80 trials in acquisition but significantly less accurate performance on a 40-trial retention test given 24 hr after practice. In addition, the spring version of the task was performed significantly less accurately than the no-spring version on the 24-hr retention test. Most important, a significant interaction on the 24-hr retention test revealed that performance of the no-spring version of the task, when KR had been given after a 2-trial delay, was significantly more accurate than performance of the other 3 combinations of task version and KR schedule. The results suggest that KR dependency in motor skill learning is related to familiarity with task-intrinsic feedback in addition to the schedule on which KR is presented.     

Motor learning as a function of KR schedule and characteristics of task-intrinsic feedback

Forty participants (age range = 18-35 years) practiced 1 of 2 versions of an aiming task (with or without spring resistance). Knowledge of results (KR) was provided to them either immediately or after a delay of 2 trials. Immediate KR led to significantly more accurate performance during the 80 trials in acquisition but significantly less accurate performance on a 40-trial retention test given 24 hr after practice. In addition, the spring version of the task was performed significantly less accurately than the no-spring version on the 24-hr retention test. Most important, a significant interaction on the 24-hr retention test revealed that performance of the no-spring version of the task, when KR had been given after a 2-trial delay, was significantly more accurate than performance of the other 3 combinations of task version and KR schedule. The results suggest that KR dependency in motor skill learning is related to familiarity with task-intrinsic feedback in addition to the schedule on which KR is presented.     

The role of verbal estimates of movement error in ballistic skill acquisition

The role of verbal estimates of movement error in a ballistic movement task was investigated. Two groups performed a rapid linear movement timing task for 50 trials with KR followed by 50 trials without KR. Group I was required to give a verbal estimate of movement time immediately after the task, while Group II was not. Verbal labeling of movement error did not augment performance when KR was present. When KR was withdrawn, however, Group I maintained performance, but Group II's response accuracy declined. Implications for current motor learning theories are discussed.     

Support for an explanation of the guidance effect in motor skill learning

The authors investigated whether the knowledge of results (KR) schedule influences the extent to which intrinsic feedback is noticed and used. Fifty-six participants received KR that was either delayed over 2 trials (Delay-2) or provided directly after each trial (Delay-0) during 160 trials of an unfamiliar aiming task. No-KR retention tests were given after 80 trials and 1 min and 24 hr after the end of acquisition. After retention, all participants were questioned about their use of intrinsic feedback during practice and whether those sources changed as a function of practice. The Delay-2 group performed significantly less accurately on the 1st and last blocks of acquisition trials but showed a significantly smaller performance decline from acquisition to retention. Moreover, the Delay-2 group noticed and used a greater variety of intrinsic feedback sources and its members were more likely to report that their usage changed with practice.