Average KR degrades parameter learning

In the present study, the effects of average knowledge of results (KR) about a set of trials on the learning of a spatiotemporal movement pattern were examined. Participants (N = 85) practiced 3 movement patterns with the same relative and absolute timing and the same relative amplitudes but with varied absolute amplitudes. Five groups of participants practiced under 1 of the following 5 conditions: KR after every trial (100% KR); average KR after every 3rd trial (average); average KR after every trial about the last 3 trials (running-average); KR after every 3rd trial (33% KR); and KR after every trial; plus average KR after every 3rd trial (both). Although there were no differences between groups in the learning of the fundamental movement pattern (or generalized motor program), average feedback (average, running-average) clearly degraded subjects' ability to learn to properly parameterize the actions in amplitude.     

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.     

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 skill acquisition and retention as a function of average feedback, summary feedback, and performance variability

Summary feedback involves withholding feedback from subjects until the last trial in a block is completed, and then presenting feedback about each trial. A variation of this method, called average feedback (Young & Schmidt, 1992), presents subjects with only the mean of the trial block. We investigated whether these methods have similar effects on acquisition and retention of a simple motor skill. Five groups of subjects (n = 16 per group) performed 60 acquisition trials of an aiming task involving both spatial and temporal accuracy. We presented average and summary feedback based on either 5-trial blocks or 15-trial blocks and compared these schedules with every-trial feedback. During acquisition, all groups improved with practice, with a slight tendency for the every-trial condition to have less absolute error than the longer summary and average conditions. Analysis of delayed no-feedback retention tests, however, revealed a strong advantage for the 5-trial summary and average conditions compared with the every-trial condition. In addition, we found that for long blocks of acquisition trials without augmented feedback, the performance variability of those trials was associated with retention performance. Results are discussed in terms of how these different manipulations may make feedback less useful during acquisition, but foster the use of certain information processing activities that enhance overall learning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Consistent and Variable Practice Conditions: Effects on Relative and Absolute Timing

The authors conducted the present experiments to resolve the discrepancy between studies in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced by consistent practice conditions and contextual interference experiments in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced more by random practice than by blocked practice. There were 40 participants in Experiment 1 and 48 in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 1 extended previous findings: The learning of the relative-timing pattern was systematically enhanced by the degree to which the practice conditions promoted movement consistency (constant > blocked > serial > random). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the discrepancy between the relative-timing effects in the 2 groups of studies was a product of the way in which relative-timing goals and feedback were presented. When the feedback was presented as segment times, random practice resulted in generally more stable relative-timing patterns during acquisition than blocked practice did. Thus, in both experiments, the learning of the relative-timing pattern was enhanced by more stable relative-timing conditions during acquisition. Absolute-timing learning, as indexed by the transfer tests, was enhanced by serial or random practice as compared with constant or blocked practice, and was relatively unaffected by feedback conditions directed at the relative-timing pattern. In terms of motor programming theory, those findings are taken as additional evidence for the disassociation of memories supporting generalized motor program (GMP) performance, as indexed by relative timing, and parameter performance, as indexed by absolute timing.     

Consistent and variable practice conditions: effects on relative and absolute timing

The authors conducted the present experiments to resolve the discrepancy between studies in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced by consistent practice conditions and contextual interference experiments in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced more by random practice than by blocked practice. There were 40 participants in Experiment 1 and 48 in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 1 extended previous findings: The learning of the relative-timing pattern was systematically enhanced by the degree to which the practice conditions promoted movement consistency (constant > blocked > serial > random). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the discrepancy between the relative-timing effects in the 2 groups of studies was a product of the way in which relative-timing goals and feedback were presented. When the feedback was presented as segment times, random practice resulted in generally more stable relative-timing patterns during acquisition than blocked practice did. Thus, in both experiments, the learning of the relative-timing pattern was enhanced by more stable relative-timing conditions during acquisition. Absolute-timing learning, as indexed by the transfer tests, was enhanced by serial or random practice as compared with constant or blocked practice, and was relatively unaffected by feedback conditions directed at the relative-timing pattern. In terms of motor programming theory, those findings are taken as additional evidence for the disassociation of memories supporting generalized motor program (GMP) performance, as indexed by relative timing, and parameter performance, as indexed by absolute timing.     

Self-controlled practice: Autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning

ObjectiveIn previous self-controlled feedback studies, it was observed that participants who could control their own feedback schedules usually use a strategy of choosing feedback after successful trials, and present superior motor learning when compared with participants who were not allowed to choose. Yoked participants of these studies, however, were thwarted not only regarding autonomy but also, presumably, regarding perceived competence, as their feedback schedules were provided randomly, regarding good or bad trials. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether self-controlled feedback schedules would have differential effects on learning if yoked participants are provided with feedback after good trials at the same rate as their self-controlled counterparts.DesignExperimental study with two groups. Timing accuracy was assessed in two different experimental phases, supplemented by questionnaire data.MethodParticipants practiced a coincident-anticipation timing task with a self-controlled or yoked feedback schedule during practice. Participants of the self-controlled group were able to ask for feedback for two trials, after each of five 6-trial practice blocks. Yoked participants received a feedback schedule matching the self-control group schedule, according to accuracy.ResultsParticipants asked for (self-controlled group) and received (yoked group) feedback, mainly after relatively good trials. However, participants of the self-controlled group reported greater self-efficacy at the end of practice, and performed with greater accuracy one day later, on the retention test, than the yoked group.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the autonomy provided by self-controlled feedback protocols can raise learners' perceptions of competence, with positive consequences on motor learning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning: exploring the guidance hypothesis

Recent work on the role of knowledge of results (KR) in motor learning has challenged some traditional assumptions. In particular, the guidance hypothesis suggests that there is a detriment to learning when KR guides the learner toward correct performance. Three experiments that explored this hypothesis are reported here. These experiments contrasted the effects of relative frequency of guidance versus the relative frequency of KR. According to the guidance hypothesis, it was predicted that parallel effects of the relative frequency manipulation on motor learning and performance would result under guided and KR conditions. The movement task was a reciprocal timing task that was either paced by a metronome (Experiment 1) or augmented by auditory KR (Experiments 2 and 3). The results of Experiments 1 and 3 revealed a number of parallel effects, thus providing support for the guidance hypothesis. The contrast of Experiments 1 and 2 resulted in a number of dissociable effects, however. These findings are discussed in relation to the potential guiding properties of KR and their impact on motor performance and learning.     

Contextual interference in movements of the same class: differential effects on program and parameter learning

Contextual interference effects in motor learning usually were not found when the tasks to be learned presumably required the same generalized motor program (GMP) and differed only with regard to the movement parameters (see Lee, Wulf, & Schmidt, 1992; Magill & Hall, 1990). Thus, tasks requiring different motor programs (e.g., different relative timings) seemed to be a prerequisite for random practice to be more effective than blocked practice. However, the previous studies (that did not find random/blocked differences) used global error measures that confounded errors in relative timing and errors in absolute timing. In the present study, subjects practiced three movement patterns that had the same relative timing (requiring the same GMP) but different overall durations (requiring different parameters). Errors in relative timing and in absolute timing were assessed separately. The results indicate that random practice is more effective for the learning of relative timing (GMP learning) and less effective for the learning of absolute timing (parameter learning) than blocked practice. Preliminary ideas as to the reasons for this effect are discussed.