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.     

Self-control over combined video feedback and modeling facilitates motor learning

Allowing learners to control the video presentation of knowledge of performance (KP) or an expert model during practice has been shown to facilitate motor learning (Aiken, Fairbrother, & Post, 2012; Wulf, Raupach, & Pfeiffer, 2005). Split-screen replay features now allow for the simultaneous presentation of these modes of instructional support. It is uncertain, however, if such a combination incorporated into a self-control protocol would yield similar benefits seen in earlier self-control studies. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of self-controlled split-screen replay on the learning of a golf chip shot. Participants completed 60 practice trials, three administrations of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, and a questionnaire on day one. Retention and transfer tests and a final motivation inventory were completed on day two. Results revealed significantly higher form and accuracy scores for the self-control group during transfer. The self-control group also had significantly higher scores on the perceived competence subscale, reported requesting feedback mostly after perceived poor trials, and recalled a greater number of critical task features compared to the yoked group. The findings for the performance measures were consistent with previous self-control research.     

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.     

Dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning benefit

Giving learners control over their feedback schedule has been shown to enhance motor learning. This effect has been attributed to enhanced intrinsic motivation via fulfilling learners’ needs for feelings of autonomy and competence, and greater information processing through provoking learners to estimate their errors. However, there is a lack of studies dissociating the contributions of motivational and information processing factors to the self-controlled feedback learning effect. To address this shortcoming, we crossed self-controlled feedback and error estimation in the same experimental design in the largest pre-registered self-control study to date (N = 200). Participants performed a nondominant arm bean bag tossing task under one of four training conditions in which feedback schedule was either controlled by the participant or matched to a counterpart and error estimation was either mandatory or not enforced. Learning was assessed 24 h after the acquisition phase in retention and transfer tests. Results showed no statistically significant learning advantage for participants given control over feedback despite promoting spontaneous error estimation, and, surprisingly, results showed a disadvantage specific to the transfer test for participants obligated to estimate their errors. Further, although self-control over feedback resulted in its delivery on relatively accurate trials and slightly increased learners’ perceived autonomy, it did not enhance perceived competence or intrinsic motivation. At the individual level, however, intrinsic motivation did predict motor learning. The present study challenges the benefit of self-controlled feedback while supporting the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on motor learning.     

Neural mechanism underlying self-controlled feedback on motor skill learning

The present study investigated the neural mechanisms of self-controlled (SC) feedback underlying its learning advantages. Forty-two participants, including 24 females (16.43 ± 2.61 years) and 18 males (17.56 ± 0.86 years), were randomly assigned to a SC or yoked (YK) group. The 6-key-pressing task with a goal movement time was adopted as the experimental task. The behavioral results showed that the SC group demonstrated superior performance in transfer; however, the differences in retention did not reach statistical significance. Event-related potential analyses revealed that the SC group exhibited larger post-stimulus and post-feedback P3 amplitudes than the YK group in the frontal regions; these amplitudes were larger in the YK group in the parietal regions. The post-response error positivity amplitude was found to be larger in the YK group than in the SC group. These results suggest that SC feedback may allow the learner to more actively process the task stimuli and feedback information, and contributes to enhancing the learner’s motivation and attachment to the task being practiced. The present study provides a neurophysiological explanation for why SC feedback is effective in learning a new motor skill.     

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.     

Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning

This study examined motivational effects of feedback on motor learning. Specifically, we investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a balance task (stabilometer). In addition to veridical feedback (error scores reflecting deviation from the target horizontal platform position) about their own performance after each trial, two groups received false normative information about the “average” score of others on that trial. Average performance scores indicated that the participant's performance was either above (better group) or below (worse group) the average, respectively. A control group received veridical feedback about trial performance without normative feedback. Learning as a function of social-comparative feedback was determined in a retention test without feedback, performed on a third day following two days of practice. Normative feedback affected the learning of the balance task: The better group demonstrated more effective balance performance than both the worse and control groups on the retention test. Furthermore, high-frequency/low-amplitude balance adjustments, indicative of more automatic control of movement, were greater in the better than in the worse group. The control group exhibited more limited learning and less automaticity than both the better and the worse groups. The findings indicate that positive normative feedback had a facilitatory effect on motor learning.     

Examining the impact of error estimation on the effects of self-controlled feedback

Two experiments were conducted that examined the motivational and informational perspectives concerning learning advantages from self-controlled practice. Three groups were tasked with learning a novel skill; self-controlled (SC), yoked traditional (YT), and yoked with error estimation required during the acquisition phase (YE). Results from the delayed learning measures showed the YE group performed better than the SC and YT groups, for Expt. 1. A similar pattern emerged for Expt. 2, albeit, this was not significant. While there were no motivation differences across the groups in either experiment, a strong correlation in Expt. 2 was shown between error estimation capabilities, which were best for the YE group, and learning. These combined results suggest that informational processes contribute more to the self-controlled feedback learning advantage, relative to motivational contributions.     

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.     

Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children

ObjectivesThe present study investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a throwing task in 10-year-old children.DesignTwo-group experimental design, including a practice phase and retention test.MethodBoth groups of participants, a positive social-comparative feedback and a control group, received veridical feedback about their performance (accuracy score) after each practice trial. In addition, after each block of 10 trials, the positive feedback group was given bogus feedback suggesting that their own performance was better than that of a peer group's on that block. One day after the practice phase, a retention test without (veridical or social-comparative) feedback was performed to assess learning effects as a function of feedback.ResultsThe positive feedback group demonstrated greater throwing accuracy than the control group on the retention test. In addition, questionnaire results indicated that this group scored higher in terms of perceived competence than the control group.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that feedback can have an important motivational function that affects the learning of motor skills in children.     

The negative feedback dysregulation effect: losses of motor control in response to negative feedback

Negative feedback has paradoxical features to it. This form of feedback can have informational value under some circumstances, but it can also threaten the ego, potentially upsetting behaviour as a result. To investigate possible consequences of the latter type, two experiments (total N?=?159) presented positive or negative feedback within a sequence-prediction task that could not be solved. Following feedback, participants had to control their behaviours as effectively as possible in a motor control task. Relative to positive feedback, negative feedback undermined control in a manner suggesting emotional upset (Experiment 1). These reactions lasted for at least three seconds and were especially pronounced among people reporting that they typically lose control in the context of their negative emotions (Experiment 2). The findings document a novel form of behavioural dysregulation that occurs in response to negative feedback while also highlighting the utility of motor control perspectives on self-control.     

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.     

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.     

Self-control and frequency of model presentation: Effects on learning a ballet passé relevé

The purpose of this experiment was to examine the combined effects of self-control and frequency of model presentation on learning a complex motor skill, i.e., ballet passé relevé. Before practice started self-control participants were asked to choose two viewings or six viewings (before practice and then every five trials) and the externally controlled groups were yoked to their self-control counterparts. All participants completed 15 acquisition trials followed by 5 trials for the immediate and 5 trials for the delayed retention tests 48 hours later. Dependent variables included cognitive representation scores, physical reproduction rankings, and balance time. Statistical analyses indicated that under limited physical practice conditions self-control and higher frequency of model presentation facilitated the development of cognitive representation and did not produce further benefits in movement reproductions and balance time. The results were discussed with respect to the social cognitive theory.     

Meta-analysis of the reduced relative feedback frequency effect on motor learning and performance

A fundamental motor learning principle conveyed in textbooks is that augmented terminal feedback frequency differentially affects motor learning and performance. The guidance hypothesis predicts that relative to a reduced frequency of feedback, providing learners with feedback following every practice trial enhances practice performance but degrades subsequent motor learning. This change in effectiveness for each relative feedback frequency is called a reversal effect, and because it is thought that practice variables can have distinct impacts on learning and performance, delayed retention tests are considered the gold standard in motor learning research. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to a) synthesize the available evidence regarding feedback frequency, performance, and motor learning to test whether there are significant changes in effectiveness from acquisition and immediate retention to delayed retention, b) evaluate potential moderators of these effects, and c) investigate the potential influence of publication bias on this literature. We screened 1662 articles found in PubMed and PsycINFO databases as well as with reference tracing and a targeted author search. A final sample of 61 eligible papers were included in the primary analysis (k = 75, N = 2228). Results revealed substantial heterogeneity but no significant moderators, high levels of uncertainty, and no significant effect of reduced feedback frequency at any time point. Further, multilevel analyses revealed no evidence of a significant change in effect from acquisition or immediate retention to delayed retention. Z-curve analysis suggested the included studies were severely underpowered. These results suggest that robust evidence regarding feedback frequency and motor learning is lacking.     

Effects of bandwidth feedback on the automatization of an arm movement sequence

We examined the effects of a bandwidth feedback manipulation on motor learning. Effects on movement accuracy, as well as on movement consistency, have been addressed in earlier studies. We have additionally investigated the effects on motor automatization. Because providing error feedback is believed to induce attentional control processes, we suppose that a bandwidth method should facilitate motor automatization. Participants (N = 48) were assigned to four groups: one control group and three intervention groups. Participants of the intervention groups practiced an arm movement sequence with 760 trials. The BW0-Group practiced with 100% frequency of feedback. For the BW10-Group, feedback was provided when the errors were larger than 10°. The YokedBW10-Group participants were matched to the feedback schedule of research twins from the BW10-Group. All groups performed pre-tests and retention tests with a secondary task paradigm to test for automaticity. The BW10-Group indicated a higher degree of automatization compared with the BW0-Group, which did not exhibit a change in automaticity. The comparison of the YokedBW10-Group, which also exhibited automatization, and the BW10-Group leads to the proposal that reduction of quantitative feedback frequency and additional positive feedback are responsible for the bandwidth effect. Differences in movement accuracy and consistency were not evident.     

The effect of feedback stimuli on contextual fear depends upon the length of the minimum intertrial interval

The present experiments investigated the effects of manipulation of the minimum intertrial interval (ITI) on the ability of a feedback stimulus to reduce the amount of fear conditioned to the shock context. In Experiment 1, we found that animals exposed to yoked shock with a feedback stimulus were equivalent to animals which received escapable shock, and both these groups showed less fear of the shock context than did yoked animals not given feedback, when a minimum ITI of 60 s was used. This replicated the effect of feedback on contextual fear conditioning. However, animals exposed to yoked shock with a feedback stimulus but for whom the minimum ITI was 5 s showed as much fear of the context as yoked animals not given feedback. Experiment 2 assessed whether this difference was solely due to the lower minimum ITI resulting in more fear than the 60-s minimum ITI, or whether the lower minimum ITI precluded the effect of feedback. The former possibility was discounted. Thus, these studies demonstrate that a relatively long minimum ITI is essential for the observance of a feedback effect on fear of the shock context.     

The effect of augmented feedback on the performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills: A systematic review

BackgroundAugmented feedback is often provided by coaches and practitioners as a method to enhance the performance of athletes and learners. When implementing a feedback intervention, it is important to assess the expertise of the learner and the complexity of the skill, to ensure an appropriate feedback modality, frequency, and timing is provided. However, researchers have a limited understanding of how these variables interact to influence the performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills.ObjectivesThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effects of augmented feedback on the performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills in an adult population.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO, from inception to March 2020, with a revised search completed to January 2022. The search terms used were related to augmented feedback and motor performance and learning. Studies were included if they consisted of a randomised control trial with pre- and retention-testing measures, which investigated an AF intervention on a gross motor and/or sport-specific skill in a healthy adult population. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2).ResultsTwenty-four studies were included, with a total of 895 participants. Most studies reported a learning improvement following the provision of AF. One study documented a decrease in performance, and two studies reported no learning improvement Conflicting evidence was reported regarding which feedback frequency, timing, and duration was most appropriate. Furthermore, the inconsistency in methodological designs (control group types; timing of retention-tests; lack of retention tests) limited the comparisons that could be made between studies. Eighteen studies reported a high risk of bias, with the remaining six presenting some concerns.ConclusionAlthough studies have shown positive effects of AF on the performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills, the majority are at a high risk of bias. Additionally, studies lacked standardisation in methodology, and results surrounding features of AF interventions were conflicting. Despite the conceptually sound rationale, further research is required to provide stronger evidence and a more robust understanding to better inform practitioners on how AF truly impacts the performance and learning of gross motor and sport-specific skills.RegistrationThis systematic review was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mrxzg) (10.17605/OSF.IO/MRXZG)     

Autonomy facilitates repeated maximum force productions

Performer autonomy (or self-control) has consistently been shown to enhance motor learning, and it can also provide immediate benefits for motor performance. Autonomy is also a key variable in the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). It is assumed to contribute to enhanced expectancies and goal-action coupling, affecting performance effectiveness and efficiency. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether providing autonomy support by giving performers choices would enhance their ability to maintain maximum force levels. Participants were asked to repeatedly produce maximum forces using a hand dynamometer. After 2 initial trials with the dominant and non-dominant hand, stratified randomization was used to assign participants with the same average maximum force to one of two groups, choice or yoked control groups. Choice group participants were able to choose the order of hands (dominant, non-dominant) on the remaining trials (3 per hand). For control group participants, hand order was determined by choice-group counterparts. Maximum forces decreased significantly across trials in the control group, whereas choice group participants were able to maintain the maximum forces produced on the first trial. We interpret these findings as evidence that performer autonomy promotes movement efficiency. The results are in line with the view that autonomy facilitates the coupling of goals and actions (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).     

Self-attribution of attitude as a function of belief feedback

Previous research has found that subjects listening to a communication can be persuaded more when they receive false physiological feedback concerning their emotional state than when such feedback is not presented. Such results, in conjunction with Bem's (1972) postulate that subjects infer their attitude from the external circumstances of their behavior, suggested that false feedback of belief or disbelief would affect persuasion. Subjects listened to a speech while observing their (false) reactions on a "belief meter." Half of the subjects received strong positive belief feedback, and the other half received strong disbelief feedback. Demand characteristics were varied by telling half of the subjects in each group that the meter was highly reliable and valid and the other half that is was of questionable validity. Results showed that the meter feedback affected self-attributions of attitude. Subjects receiving disbelief feedback rated their attitude the same as a control group who merely completed the attitude scale. Subjects receiving belief feedback were persuaded more than a control group receiving only the communication. The implications of the data for the construct of attitude were discussed.