Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

18-02-2016 | Original Article

An interpolated activity during the knowledge-of-results delay interval eliminates the learning advantages of self-controlled feedback schedules

Auteurs: Michael J. Carter, Diane M. Ste-Marie

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2017

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

The learning advantages of self-controlled knowledge-of-results (KR) schedules compared to yoked schedules have been linked to the optimization of the informational value of the KR received for the enhancement of one’s error-detection capabilities. This suggests that information-processing activities that occur after motor execution, but prior to receiving KR (i.e., the KR-delay interval) may underlie self-controlled KR learning advantages. The present experiment investigated whether self-controlled KR learning benefits would be eliminated if an interpolated activity was performed during the KR-delay interval. Participants practiced a waveform matching task that required two rapid elbow extension-flexion reversals in one of four groups using a factorial combination of choice (self-controlled, yoked) and KR-delay interval (empty, interpolated). The waveform had specific spatial and temporal constraints, and an overall movement time goal. The results indicated that the self-controlled + empty group had superior retention and transfer scores compared to all other groups. Moreover, the self-controlled + interpolated and yoked + interpolated groups did not differ significantly in retention and transfer; thus, the interpolated activity eliminated the typically found learning benefits of self-controlled KR. No significant differences were found between the two yoked groups. We suggest the interpolated activity interfered with information-processing activities specific to self-controlled KR conditions that occur during the KR-delay interval and that these activities are vital for reaping the associated learning benefits. These findings add to the growing evidence that challenge the motivational account of self-controlled KR learning advantages and instead highlights informational factors associated with the KR-delay interval as an important variable for motor learning under self-controlled KR schedules.
Voetnoten
1
Although this idea was expressed by Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005), the absence of yoked groups in their design posed a challenge for making conclusions regarding the relationship between choice over KR delivery and the timing of this decision with respect to the role of error estimation.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Adams, J. A. (1971). Closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–150.CrossRefPubMed Adams, J. A. (1971). Closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–150.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325.PubMedPubMedCentral Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. doi:10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2014.​01325.PubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Carter, M. J., Rathwell, S., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2015). Motor skill retention is modulated by strategy choice during self-controlled knowledge of results schedules. Journal of Motor Learning and Development. (accepted). Carter, M. J., Rathwell, S., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2015). Motor skill retention is modulated by strategy choice during self-controlled knowledge of results schedules. Journal of Motor Learning and Development. (accepted).
go back to reference Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 408–415.CrossRefPubMed Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 408–415.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(1), 42–48.CrossRefPubMed Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(1), 42–48.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kantak, S. S., Sullivan, K. J., Fisher, B. E., Knowlton, B. J., & Winstein, C. J. (2010). Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8), 923–925. doi:10.1038/Nn.2596.CrossRefPubMed Kantak, S. S., Sullivan, K. J., Fisher, B. E., Knowlton, B. J., & Winstein, C. J. (2010). Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8), 923–925. doi:10.​1038/​Nn.​2596.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0814-7. Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,. doi:10.​3758/​s13423-015-0814-7.
go back to reference Lin, C. H., Fisher, B. E., Winstein, C. J., Wu, A. D., & Gordon, J. (2008). Contextual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40(6), 578–586. doi:10.3200/Jmbr.40.6.578-586.CrossRefPubMed Lin, C. H., Fisher, B. E., Winstein, C. J., Wu, A. D., & Gordon, J. (2008). Contextual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40(6), 578–586. doi:10.​3200/​Jmbr.​40.​6.​578-586.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lin, C. H., Winstein, C. J., Fisher, B. E., & Wu, A. D. (2010). Neural correlates of the contextual interference effect in motor learning: a transcranial magnetic stimulation investigation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42(4), 223–232.CrossRefPubMed Lin, C. H., Winstein, C. J., Fisher, B. E., & Wu, A. D. (2010). Neural correlates of the contextual interference effect in motor learning: a transcranial magnetic stimulation investigation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42(4), 223–232.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Marteniuk, R. G. (1976). Information processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Marteniuk, R. G. (1976). Information processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
go back to reference Marteniuk, R. G. (1986). Information processes in movement learning: capacity and structural interference effects. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18(1), 55–75.CrossRefPubMed Marteniuk, R. G. (1986). Information processes in movement learning: capacity and structural interference effects. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18(1), 55–75.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9(8), 1265–1279.CrossRefPubMed Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9(8), 1265–1279.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Patterson, J. T., Carter, M., & Sanli, E. (2011). Decreasing the proportion of self-control trials during the acquisition period does not compromise the learning advantages in a self-controlled context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(4), 624–633.CrossRefPubMed Patterson, J. T., Carter, M., & Sanli, E. (2011). Decreasing the proportion of self-control trials during the acquisition period does not compromise the learning advantages in a self-controlled context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(4), 624–633.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Schmidt, R. A. (1975a). Motor skills. New York: Harper and Row. Schmidt, R. A. (1975a). Motor skills. New York: Harper and Row.
go back to reference Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
go back to reference Schmidt, R. A., & Young, D. E. (1991). Methodology for motor learning: a paradigm for kinematic feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23(1), 13–24.CrossRefPubMed Schmidt, R. A., & Young, D. E. (1991). Methodology for motor learning: a paradigm for kinematic feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23(1), 13–24.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Swinnen, S. P. (1988). Post-performance activities and skill learning. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex motor behaviour: the motor-action controversy (pp. 315–338). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.CrossRef Swinnen, S. P. (1988). Post-performance activities and skill learning. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex motor behaviour: the motor-action controversy (pp. 315–338). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.CrossRef
go back to reference Swinnen, S. P. (1990). Interpolated activities during the knowledge-of-results delay and post knowledge-of-results interval—effects on performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 692–705. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.692. Swinnen, S. P. (1990). Interpolated activities during the knowledge-of-results delay and post knowledge-of-results interval—effects on performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 692–705. doi:10.​1037/​/​0278-7393.​16.​4.​692.
go back to reference Swinnen, S. P. (1996). Information feedback for motor skill learning: a review. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 37–66). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Swinnen, S. P. (1996). Information feedback for motor skill learning: a review. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 37–66). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
go back to reference Swinnen, S. P., Nicholson, D. E., Schmidt, R. A., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 706–716. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.706. Swinnen, S. P., Nicholson, D. E., Schmidt, R. A., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 706–716. doi:10.​1037/​0278-7393.​16.​4.​706.
go back to reference Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011). Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 739–751. doi:10.1038/nrn3112.PubMed Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011). Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 739–751. doi:10.​1038/​nrn3112.PubMed
go back to reference Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C., & Kawato, M. (1998). Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(9), 338–347.CrossRefPubMed Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C., & Kawato, M. (1998). Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(9), 338–347.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., & Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1134–1150.PubMed Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., & Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1134–1150.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
An interpolated activity during the knowledge-of-results delay interval eliminates the learning advantages of self-controlled feedback schedules
Auteurs
Michael J. Carter
Diane M. Ste-Marie
Publicatiedatum
18-02-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0757-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2017

Psychological Research 2/2017 Naar de uitgave