Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities

In 2 experiments, the authors studied the effectiveness of physical and observational practice on learning and the effect on learning of combining physical practice and observation, as compared with providing physical practice alone. In Experiment 1, retention and transfer performance of 30 university students after physical, observational, or no practice were contrasted. Consistent with findings from other studies, the retention results indicated that observational practice is inferior to physical practice. The transfer data indicated no differences between observation and physical practice groups. In Experiment 2, retention and transfer performance of 30 participants in physical and combined (alternating physical and observational) practice groups were contrasted. The retention results showed no differences between the combined and physical practice groups, but the combined group performed significantly better than the physical practice group on the transfer test. Those findings suggest that a combination of observation and physical practice permits unique opportunities for learning beyond those available via either practice regimen alone.     

Physical and Observational Practice Afford Unique Learning Opportunities

In 2 experiments, the authors studied the effectiveness of physical and observational practice on learning and the effect on learning of combining physical practice and observation, as compared with providing physical practice alone. In Experiment 1, retention and transfer performance of 30 university students after physical, observational, or no practice were contrasted. Consistent with findings from other studies, the retention results indicated that observational practice is inferior to physical practice. The transfer data indicated no differences between observation and physical practice groups. In Experiment 2, retention and transfer performance of 30 participants in physical and combined (alternating physical and observational) practice groups were contrasted. The retention results showed no differences between the combined and physical practice groups, but the combined group performed significantly better than the physical practice group on the transfer test. Those findings suggest that a combination of observation and physical practice permits unique opportunities for learning beyond those available via either practice regimen alone.     

Observing different model types interspersed with physical practice has no effect on consolidation or motor learning of an elbow flexion–extension task

We compared varied model types and their potential differential effects on learning outcomes and consolidation processes when observational practice was interspersed with physical practice. Participants (N = 75) were randomly assigned to one of five groups: (1) unskilled model observation, (2) skilled model observation, (3) mixed-model observation, (4) physical practice only, and (5) no observational or physical practice (control). All were tasked with learning a waveform-matching task. With exception of the control group not involved in acquisition sessions, participants were involved in one pre-test, two acquisition sessions, four retention tests (immediate-post acquisition 1, 24hr post acquisition 1, immediate-post acquisition 2, and approximate 7-day retention), as well as an approximate 7-day transfer test. No differences were demonstrated in consolidation processes or learning outcomes as all groups showed the same pattern of retention and transfer data. Our conclusion is that motor memory processes were not impacted differentially when different models types were used in observational practice that was intermixed with physical practice for the learning of a movement pattern with low task difficulty, and thus similar learning outcomes emerged for all groups.     

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.     

Now you see me,now you don’t: Adapting practice through target exclusion negatively impacts motor learning

How to optimize practice through scheduling of different task components or skills is a question that has received a lot of attention in motor learning research. Consistently, schedules with high variability in the order that skills are practiced elicit better learning outcomes than schedules with low variability. Another idea is that learners should seek to reduce the uncertainty of practice outcomes, by avoiding well-learned, low error components in acquisition. To test this idea, we used a target exclusion method to prevent learners from returning to task components with low error and studied how individuals given choice over practice choose to allocate time to components of varying difficulty. In a multi-target adaptation paradigm, we compared exclusion with no exclusion methods in random-schedule, self-control and yoked, matched-schedule groups (6 groups total). To manipulate uncertainty, we excluded targets from practice once participants attained a criterion error score (mean < 5^o) from the last 5 trials to the same target. Contrary to our predictions, groups that practiced without target exclusion were more accurate in retention compared to exclusion groups; irrespective of practice schedule. Self-control groups adopted uncertainty-based practice, spending more time at difficult targets and less time at easier targets. However, there were no group differences in error, based on schedule-type (random, self-control and yoked). In conclusion, target exclusion was not an effective method for learning and did not support the efficacy of uncertainty-based practice for learning novel skills. There were benefits from keeping easier/low error skills in practice for later retention. These benefits did not appear to be related to the increased switching between skills, but could be related to increased task engagement and more optimal challenge associated with practice on a range of target difficulties, rather than the most difficult.     

Choice of practice-task order enhances golf skill learning

ObjectiveThe purpose of the present study was to examine whether supporting learners’ autonomy, by giving them a small choice (i.e., order of practice devices) while practicing a golf putting task, would enhance learning, confidence, and positive affect.DesignExperimental, between-participants, and yoked design.MethodsTwo groups of participants practiced a golf-putting task under choice or control conditions. Choice group participants selected the order of three practice devices (visual cues, auditory cues, chest bar), while control group participants had to use those devices in the same order as their yoked choice-group counterpart. Learning was assessed by a delayed retention test. In addition to putting accuracy, we measured learners’ perceived choice, confidence, and positive affect.ResultsPractice and retention performance were enhanced in the choice relative to the control group. Perceived choice, confidence, and positive affect were rated higher by choice group participants as well.ConclusionsProviding performers with a small choice during task practice had motivational benefits that resulted in enhanced learning, increased confidence, and more positive emotional responses.     

Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and coding

A complex sequence learning task was used to determine if the type of coding acquired through physical practice (PP), observation of the stimulus (Obs-S), or observation of stimulus and action (Obs-SA) differs between conditions and whether the type of observation influences subsequent learning of the task when physical practice was permitted. Participants in the Obs-S group were permitted to watch the sequentially illuminated stimuli on the screen. In the Obs-SA group participants could see both flexion-extension movements of the model's arm performing the sequence and the sequentially illuminated stimuli on the screen. Participants in the PP group actually performed the 16-element sequence with their dominant right arm. Delayed retention tests and two inter-manual transfer tests were completed following each of two acquisition sessions. First, the data indicated that learning the sequence structure, as revealed by response time per element, occurred similarly irrespective of the initial practice condition. Secondly, the movement sequence appeared to be coded in abstract visual-spatial coordinates resulting in effector-independent performance. Finally, observing the model's action and sequential stimuli allows participants to transfer the perceived aspects of the movement sequence into efficient coordination patterns when additional physical practice is permitted.     

Manipulations to practice organization of golf putting skills through interleaved matched or mismatched practice with a partner

There is some evidence that alternating physical and observational practice with a partner for the same skill can benefit learning compared to practice alone. What has not been studied is whether a partner's interleaved practice impacts multi-skill learning, when the partner either matches or mismatches their partner’s skill. Here we manipulated partners’ practice schedules of two golf putting skills. Partners practiced the same (“matched”) or different skills in alternation (“mismatched”). Based on previous research where interleaved demonstrations have induced beneficial contextual interference effects, we hypothesized that mismatching a partner on consecutive trials should also promote a similar type of interference in practice, which ultimately aids learning. A third control group was tested, where only one partner practiced while the other observed. All groups practiced for two days, with individual retention tests at the start of day 2 and one week later. Taking turns practicing and observing a partner did not benefit learning compared to the control, pure physical practice group and the matched and mismatched groups did not differ in outcomes. There was, however, evidence that partners were adapting their actions (i.e., compensating for over or undershooting of the target) based on the shots of their partner, in a similar manner to how they were adapting to their own errors. Thus, although partners were influencing each other’s performance, it was not ultimately to the benefit (or cost) of overall learning. Partner-mismatching of skills through alternating practice was not sufficient to promote interference in practice and ultimately promote learning.     

That looks easy! Evidence against the benefits of an easier criterion of success for enhancing motor learning

OPTIMAL theory predicts providing learners with a relatively easier criterion of success during practice enhances motor learning through increased self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and intrinsic motivation. However, mixed results in the literature suggest this enhancement effect may be moderated by the number of successes achieved by learners practicing with the difficult criterion. To investigate this possibility, we manipulated quantity of practice to affect the absolute number of successes achieved by learners practicing with different success criteria. Eighty participants were divided into four groups and performed 50 or 100 trials of a mini-shuffleboard task. Groups practiced with either a large or a small zone of success surrounding the target. Learning was assessed 24 h after acquisition with retention and transfer tests. In terms of endpoint accuracy and precision, there were no learning or practice performance benefits of practicing with an easier criterion of success, regardless of the number of trials. This absence of a criterion of success effect was despite the efficacy of our manipulation in increasing the number of trials stopping within the zone of success, self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and, for participants with 100 trials, intrinsic motivation. An equivalence test indicated that the effect of criterion of success was small, if existent. Moreover, at the individual level, intrinsic motivation did not predict posttest or acquisition performance. There were no benefits of easing the criterion of success on pressure, effort, accrual of explicit knowledge, or conscious processing. These data challenge key tenets of OPTIMAL theory and question the efficacy of easing criterion of success for motor learning.     

Observation and physical practice: coding of simple motor sequences

An experiment was conducted to determine the coordinate system used in the development of movement codes during observation and utilized on later physical practice performance of a simple spatial-temporal movement sequence. The task was to reproduce a 1.3-s spatial-temporal pattern of elbow flexions and extensions. An intermanual transfer paradigm with a retention test and two transfer tests was used: a mirror transfer test where the same pattern of muscle activation and limb joint angles was required and a nonmirror transfer test where the visual-spatial pattern of the sequence was reinstated on the transfer test. The results indicated a strong advantage for participants in the physical practice condition when transferred to the mirror condition in which the motor coordinates (e.g., pattern of muscle activation and joint angles) were reinstated relative to transfer performance when the visual-spatial coordinates were reinstated (visual and spatial location of the target waveform). The observation group, however, demonstrated an advantage when the visual-spatial coordinates were reinstated. These results demonstrate that codes based in motor coordinates can be developed relatively quickly for simple rapid movement sequences when participants are provided physical practice, but observational practice limits the system to the development of codes based in visual-spatial coordinates. Performances of control participants, who were not permitted to practise or observe the task, were quite poor on all tests.     

Motor learning without physical practice: The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on cup-stacking speed

In this study we explored training effects for combined action observation and motor imagery (AO + MI) instructions on a complex cup-stacking task, without physical practice. Using a Graeco-Latin Square design, we randomly assigned twenty-six participants into four groups. This counterbalanced the within-participant factor of practice condition (AO + MI, AO, MI, Control) across four cup-stacking tasks, which varied in their complexity. On each of the three consecutive practice days participants experienced twenty trials under each of the three mental practice conditions. On each trial, a first-person perspective video depicted bilateral cup-stacking performed by an experienced model. During AO, participants passively observed this action, responding only to occasional colour cues. For AO + MI, participants imagined performing the observed action and synchronised their concurrent MI with the display. For MI, a sequence of pictures cued imagery of each stage of the task. Analyses revealed a significant main effect of practice condition both at the ’surprise’ post-test (Day 3) and at the one-week retention test. At both time points movement execution times were significantly shorter for AO + MI compared with AO, MI and the Control. Execution times were also shorter overall at the retention compared with the post-test. These results demonstrate that a complex novel motor task can be acquired without physical training. Practitioners can therefore use AO + MI practice to supplement physical practice and optimise skill 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.     

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.     

Observation and physical practice: Coding of simple motor sequences

An experiment was conducted to determine the coordinate system used in the development of movement codes during observation and utilized on later physical practice performance of a simple spatial–temporal movement sequence. The task was to reproduce a 1.3-s spatial–temporal pattern of elbow flexions and extensions. An intermanual transfer paradigm with a retention test and two transfer tests was used: a mirror transfer test where the same pattern of muscle activation and limb joint angles was required and a nonmirror transfer test where the visual–spatial pattern of the sequence was reinstated on the transfer test. The results indicated a strong advantage for participants in the physical practice condition when transferred to the mirror condition in which the motor coordinates (e.g., pattern of muscle activation and joint angles) were reinstated relative to transfer performance when the visual–spatial coordinates were reinstated (visual and spatial location of the target waveform). The observation group, however, demonstrated an advantage when the visual–spatial coordinates were reinstated. These results demonstrate that codes based in motor coordinates can be developed relatively quickly for simple rapid movement sequences when participants are provided physical practice, but observational practice limits the system to the development of codes based in visual–spatial coordinates. Performances of control participants, who were not permitted to practise or observe the task, were quite poor on all tests.     

Autonomy support and preference-performance dissociation in choice-reaction time tasks

The purpose of the current study was threefold: (a) to examine the effects of participants having the autonomy to choose the practice order of two reaction time (RT) tasks – a choice-RT task and a Simon task – on performance, (b) to examine whether one order of practice is better than the other, and (c) to examine whether participants might choose a practice order that hinders their performance. The study was conducted online and participants completed the tasks on their own computer. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned into three groups: (a) autonomy – participants chose which task they would like to practice first, (b) choice-first – participants practiced the choice-RT task first, and (c) Simon-first – participants practiced the Simon task first. Out of these three groups we created an autonomy group (n = 17) and a no-autonomy (yoked) group (n = 17). All participants performed eight familiarization trials of each task, practiced 160 trials (8 blocks × 20 trials) of each task, and performed a post-test of 20 additional trials of each task after a three-minute rest. The main findings were that (a) participants in the autonomy group had faster RTs compared with participants in the no-autonomy group, (b) performing the choice-RT task first led to faster RTs compared with performing the Simon task first, and (c) nine of the 17 participants in the autonomy group chose to practice the Simon task first. The findings of this study suggest that providing participants with autonomy can lead to improved performance. However, there may be a dissociation between participants' preference of practice order and their performance.     

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.     

Number of options in a movement sequence affects learners' behavior in a self-controlled practice condition

Self-controlling practice implies a process of decision making, which suggests that the options in a self-controlled practice condition could affect learners. The number of task components with no fixed position in a movement sequence may affect the way learners self-control their practice. A 200-cm coincident timing track with 90 light-emitting diodes (LEDs)--the first and the last LEDs being the warning and the target lights, respectively--was set so that the apparent speed of the light along the track was 1.33 m/sec. Participants were required to touch six sensors sequentially, the last one coincidently with the lighting of the target light (timing task). Group 1 (n = 55) had only one constraint, and were instructed to touch the sensors in any order, except for the last sensor which had to be the one positioned close to the target light. Group 2 (n = 53) had three constraints: the first two and the last sensor to be touched. Both groups practiced the task until timing error was less than 30 msec. on three consecutive trials. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the number of trials needed to reach the performance criterion, but (a) participants in Group 2 created fewer sequences compared to Group 1, and (b) were more likely to use the same sequence throughout the learning process. The number of options for a movement sequence affected the way learners self-controlled their practice, but had no effect on the amount of practice to reach criterion performance.     

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.     

The Effect of Fatigue on Learning and Performance of a Gross Motor Task

40 college males were sequentially assigned to 1 of 2 groups to examine the effects of induced physical fatigue upon the performance and learning of a gross motor task, the stabilometer. All Ss were given 32 practice trials over 3 practice sessions, with 48 hr. rest interpolated between sessions. Trials 1 and 2 were performed under control conditions (no fatigue) for both groups. The Experimental Group was then required to perform under conditions of physical fatigue during Trials 3-26. Trials 27-32 (Session 3) were performed under control conditions. The condition of fatigue was achieved on Trials 3-26 by having Ss pedal a bicycle ergometer until a heart rate of 180 beats/min was attained prior to each trial. The Control Group cancelled vowels. The results indicated that physical fatigue was detrimental to the performance and learning of the Experimental Group.     

Stereotype threat affects the learning of sport motor skills

Studies have shown that stereotypical conditions can affect the performance of academic as well as motor skills (for a review see Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Fontayne, Boiché, & Clément-Guillotin, 2013). The objective of the present study was to investigate the influence of stereotype threat on the learning of a sport skill in women. Participants practiced 15 trials of a soccer dribbling task, and their learning was observed in immediate and delayed retention tests. Before practice, participants were divided into two groups which received instructions introducing the task as either involving athletic speed/power capacities, where women normally perform worse than men (stereotypical condition – ST), or as involving agility/coordination capacities, where women normally can perform similarly than men (nullified-stereotype condition – NST). They also filled out questionnaires measuring self-efficacy. Participants of the ST group showed significant lower motor performance and learning, as well as lower self-efficacy levels, than the NST group. The findings provide evidence that the learning of sport skills can be affected by stereotypical conditions. They add to the growing evidence of the impact of social-cognitive and affective factors on motor skill learning.