Knowledge of results for motor learning: relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency

The authors of the present study investigated the apparent contradiction between early and more recent views of knowledge of results (KR), the idea that how one is engaged before receiving KR may not be independent of how one uses that KR. In a 2 ×: 2 factorial design, participants (N = 64) practiced a simple force-production task and (a) were required, or not required, to estimate error about their previous response and (b) were provided KR either after every response (100%) or after every 5th response (20%) during acquisition. A no-KR retention test revealed an interaction between acquisition error estimation and KR frequencies. The group that received 100% KR and was required to error estimate during acquisition performed the best during retention. The 2 groups that received 20% KR performed less well. Finally, the group that received 100% KR and was not required to error estimate during acquisition performed the poorest during retention. One general interpretation of that pattern of results is that motor learning is an increasing function of the degree to which participants use KR to test response hypotheses (J. A. Adams, 1971; R. A. Schmidt, 1975). Practicing simple responses coupled with error estimation may embody response hypotheses that can be tested with KR, thus benefiting motor learning most under a 100% KR condition. Practicing simple responses without error estimation is less likely to embody response hypothesis, however, which may increase the probability that participants will use KR to guide upcoming responses, thus attenuating motor learning under a 100% KR condition. The authors conclude, therefore, that how one is engaged before receiving KR may not be independent of how one uses KR.     

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.     

Reducing Knowledge of Results about Relative versus Absolute Timing: Differential Effects on Learning

The purpose of the present experiment was to examine further earlier suggestions that a reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results (KR) can enhance the learning of generalized motor programs (GMPs) but at the same time degrade parameter learning, compared with giving KR after every trial (Wulf & Schmidt, 1989; Wulf, Schmidt, & Deubel, 1993). In contrast to these earlier studies, here KR was given separately for relative timing and absolute timing. Subjects practiced three movement patterns that required the same relative timing but different absolute movement times. KR was provided on 100% or 50% of the practice trials for relative timing or absolute timing, respectively. In retention and transfer tests, the groups that had had 50% KR about relative timing demonstrated more effective learning of the relative-timing structure, that is, GMP learning, than the groups that had had 100% KR about relative timing. The KR frequency had no effect on parameterization during retention; yet, when transfer to a task with a novel overall duration was required, the groups given 100% KR about absolute timing were more accurate in parameterization than the groups provided with 50% KR about absolute timing. Thus, the reduced relative KR frequency enhanced GMP learning but had no beneficial effect, or even a degrading effect, on parameter learning. The differential effects of a reduced KR frequency on the learning of relative timing and absolute timing also provide additional support for the dissociation of GMP and parameterization processes.     

Reducing Knowledge of Results About Relative Versus Absolute Timing: Differential Effects on Learning

The purpose of the present experiment was to examine further earlier suggestions that a reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results (KR) can enhance the learning of generalized motor programs (GMPs) but at the same time degrade parameter learning, compared with giving KR after every trial (Wulf & Schmidt, 1989; Wulf, Schmidt, & Deubel, 1993). In contrast to these earlier studies, here KR was given separately for relative timing and absolute timing. Subjects practiced three movement patterns that required the same relative timing but different absolute movement times. KR was provided on 100% or 50% of the practice trials for relative timing or absolute timing, respectively. In retention and transfer tests, the groups that had had 50% KR about relative timing demonstrated more effective learning of the relative-timing structure, that is, GMP learning, than the groups that had had 100% KR about relative timing. The KR frequency had no effect on parameterization during retention; yet, when transfer to a task with a novel overall duration was required, the groups given 100% KR about absolute timing were more accurate in parameterization than the groups provided with 50% KR about absolute timing. Thus, the reduced relative KR frequency enhanced GMP learning but had no beneficial effect, or even a degrading effect, on parameter learning. The differential effects of a reduced KR frequency on the learning of relative timing and absolute timing also provide additional support for the dissociation of GMP and parameterization processes.     

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 Effect of Erroneous Knowledge of Results on Skill Acquisition when Augmented Information is Redundant

Even though it can be shown that verbal knowledge of results (KR) is redundant with sensory feedback for learning certain motor skills, such findings do not eliminate the possibility that when KR is available it influences underlying learning processes. In order to examine the function of KR more closely, two experiments were designed in which the subjects received conflicting information about their own sensory feedback and the KR presented by the experimenter. In Experiment 1, two erroneous-KR groups, a correct-KR group, and a no-KR group performed 150 practice trials on a simple anticipation timing task and then performed three no-KR retention tests of 30 trials each following intervals of 10 minutes, 1 week, and 1 month. The results supported previous findings that providing correct KR is redundant in anticipation tasks. However, learning was influenced by KR as subjects performed according to the erroneous KR information, thereby ignoring their sensory feedback even after a 1-month interval. In Experiment 2, subjects practised a more complex striking response for the anticipation task for 75 trials and then performed no-KR retention trials either immediately, or 1 day or 1 week later. One of the groups received erroneous KR after 50 practice trials with correct KR. The results confirmed and extended those from Experiment 1, as erroneous KR, even after initial practice with correct KR, influenced retention performance. These results indicate that although KR provides information that is not needed to learn anticipation timing skills, this augmented verbal information is a dominant source of information that influences underlying cognitive processes involved in learning motor skills.     

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.     

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.     

Bandwidth knowledge of results and motor learning: More than just a relative frequency effect

Motor learning is facilitated when knowledge of results (KR) is presented in accordance with a goal-centred bandwidth (i.e. when the error exceeds a tolerance limit about a movement goal). However, under different conditions of the bandwidth procedure the frequency with which KR is provided is also affected—the wider the goal-centred tolerance limits, the lower the frequency of KR. Since low-KR frequency conditions also have been shown to facilitate motor learning, it is not known whether the bandwidth KR effect is a unique phenomenon in motor learning or is simply due to differences in the frequency of KR. In the present study we partitioned the effects due to bandwidth KR from the effects due to KR frequency using a yoking procedure. Results from the acquisition performance trials indicated that bandwidth procedures exerted both error reduction and performance stabilization influences on motor behaviour that exceeded the effects of the relative frequency control procedures. Bandwidth procedures further resulted in better performance consistency during retention than the relative frequency conditions. These findings were discussed in terms of how KR about movement error and KR about the correctness of movement affect the learning of motor skill.     

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.     

Reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results without visual feedback in learning a golf-putting task

This study examined the effects of reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results (KR) on learning to putt in golf. Participants (19 men and 15 women) putted a golf ball, stopping the ball on a line at a distance of 3.5 m from the starting position, which included an uphill portion. After a pretest, participants were assigned as they arrived in balanced order by sex to one of two groups (100% KR, 33% KR) and practiced 60 trials. Those in the 100% KR group performed the task in its natural context, while others assigned to the 33% KR were shown the location of the putted ball after every third trial. All participants then performed a posttest and two retention tests, done 10 min. and 24 hr. after the posttest. Analysis at posttest showed each group had a constant error and an absolute constant error (/CE/) less than those at pretest. Also, in the retention test conducted the following day, the constant error of the 33% KR group was less than that of the 100% KR group. Third, in the posttest and both retention tests, the /CE/ of the 100% KR group was larger than that of the 33% KR group. These results suggest that reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results is effective in learning the accuracy of the golf putt.     

Observational learning: effects of bandwidth knowledge of results

The authors investigated whether bandwidth knowledge of results (KR) during observation of a model's performance enhances motor skill learning. Following a pretest, 2 groups of participants (N = 28) observed a model practicing a timing task. The bandwidth group received KR about the model's performance only when his performance fell outside the criteria for a correct response. The yoked group received KR on the same trials as the bandwidth group did but were not told that the KR was only about incorrect performances. In that way, the authors avoided a confound between bandwidth and relative frequency effects on performance and learning. Following the observation phase, both groups of participants performed 10-min and 24-hr retention tests. Bandwidth KR enabled that group to reduce its performance variability and, to a lesser extent, to enhance its performance accuracy. The authors discuss the results with respect to the powerful effect of qualitative KR through observation.     

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.     

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.     

The use of knowledge of results based on the stability of performance during acquisition of timing skill: a validity study

The goal was to examine the effect of changing knowledge-of-results bandwidth based on a participant's stable performance during acquisition of a timing skill. 36 university students experienced one of three conditions: (1) 100% KR condition during which information on errors was provided after each trial during practice, (2) fluctuation-of-range condition, wherein KR bandwidth was based on standard deviation of five trials, and (3) 10% KR bandwidth condition (10%), wherein the KR bandwidth was 810-990 msec. Variable error in the fluctuation-of-range condition at posttest and retention was significantly smaller than that with the 100% KR. Conditions in which range of KR was allowed to fluctuate were more effective for stabilizing performance.     

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 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.     

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.     

Judgments of learning are significantly higher following feedback on relatively good versus relatively poor trials despite no actual learning differences

Studies have consistently shown that prospective metacognitive judgments of learning are often inaccurate because humans mistakenly interpret current performance levels as valid indices of learning. These metacognitive discrepancies are strongly related to conditions of practice. Here, we examined how the type of feedback (after good versus poor trials) received during practice and awareness (aware versus unaware) of this manipulation affected judgments of learning and actual learning. After each six-trial block, participants received feedback on their three best trials or three worst trials and half of the participants were made explicitly aware of the type of feedback they received while the other half were unaware. Judgments of learning were made at the end of each six-trial block and before the 24-h retention test. Results indicated no motor performance differences between groups in practice or retention; however, receiving feedback on relatively good compared to relatively poor trials resulted in significantly higher judgments of learning in practice and retention, irrespective of awareness. These results suggest that KR on relatively good versus relatively poor trials can have dissociable effects on judgments of learning in the absence of actual learning differences, even when participants are made aware of their feedback manipulation.     

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.