Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2012 | Original Article

Feedback and intention during motor-skill learning: a connection with prospective memory

Auteurs: Arnaud Badets, Yannick Blandin

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2012

Abstract

The intention to complete an action in the future can improve the learning of this action, but it is unknown whether this effect persists when feedback is manipulated during encoding. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to learn a motor skill with or without intending to reproduce this learning in the future, and feedback on their movements was administrated by self-decision, that is, participants asked for feedback whenever they wanted it. The results showed that intention increased the frequency with which feedback was requested, but did not improve motor performance. In Experiment 2, participants had to learn the task with high or few feedbacks, which they could not control. In these conditions, intention was beneficial in promoting motor learning only for a low feedback schedule. We suggest that the beneficial effect of intention on learning can be overshadowed or emphasised by the feedback processing during encoding. These findings are discussed in light of theories surrounding prospective memory.

vorige artikel Sequential congruency effects: disentangling priming and conflict adaptation

volgende artikel Practice makes transfer of motor skills imperfect

The participants were instructed that the details of the motor improvements to be specified in the questionnaire were the fluency of movement during the key-pressing task, the ability to attain the required timing goals, and the strategy used to attain these goals. However, no data were collected from this questionnaire. Actually, the questionnaire was a lure for all groups, but it permitted the placement of participants of the Non-intention group in an active motor learning strategy during the acquisition phase (see Badets et al. 2006a for a similar procedure).

The Fisher’s Z transformation converts correlation coefficients that are not normally distributed to a more normal distribution (Mendenhall & Ramey, 1973).

Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150.PubMed

Andres, M., Olivier, E., & Badets, A. (2008). Action, words and numbers: A motor contribution to semantic processing? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 313–317.CrossRef

Badets, A., & Blandin, Y. (2004). The role of knowledge of results frequency in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 62–70.PubMedCrossRef

Badets, A., Blandin, Y., Bouquet, C., & Shea, C. H. (2006a). The intention superiority effect in motor skill performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 491–505.PubMedCrossRef

Badets, A., Blandin, Y., & Shea, C. H. (2006b). Intention in motor learning through observation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 377–386.PubMedCrossRef

Badets, A., Blandin, Y., Wright, D. L., & Shea, C. H. (2006c). Error detection processes during observational learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 177–184.PubMedCrossRef

Badets, A., Meunier, O., Shea, C. H., & Blandin, Y. (2006d). Effect of self-controlled KR on timing errors and performances’ estimation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, S29.

Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2008). The effects of intention and practice on a non-motor duration estimation task. Acta Psychologica, 129, 243–248.PubMedCrossRef

Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 396–401). London: Wiley.

Blandin, Y., Toussaint, L., & Shea, C. H. (2008). Specificity of practice: interaction between concurrent sensory information and terminal feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 994–1000.PubMedCrossRef

Brandimonte, M.A., & Passolunghi, M.C. (1994). The effect of cue-familiarity, cue distinctiveness, and retention interval on prospective remembering. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 565–587.

Chen, D. D., Kaufman, D., & Chung, M. W. (2001). Emergent patterns of feedback strategies in performing a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 197–204.PubMed

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, 408–415.PubMed

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, 42–48.PubMedCrossRef

Cockburn, J., & Smith, P. T. (1994). Anxiety and errors of prospective memory among elderly people. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 273–282.PubMedCrossRef

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.CrossRef

Eschen, A., Freeman, J., Dietrich, T., Martin, M., Ellis, J., Martin, E., et al. (2007). Motor brain regions are involved in the encoding of delayed intentions: A fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 64, 259–268.PubMedCrossRef

Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003). The representation of delayed intentions: a prospective subject-performed task? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 976–992.PubMedCrossRef

Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions–persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211–1226.CrossRef

Guynn, M. J. (2003). A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 245–256.CrossRef

Guynn, M. J. (2008). Theory of monitoring in prospective memory: Instantiating a retrieval mode and periodic target checking. In M. Kliegel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives (pp. 53–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRef

Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 269–279.PubMed

Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., & Nussbaum, A. (1990). Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks. Memory and Cognition, 18, 568–578.CrossRef

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bryan, E. S. (1999). The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions. Memory and Cognition, 27, 320–327.CrossRef

Mechsner, F., Kerzel, D., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature, 414, 69–73.

Mendenhall, W., & Ramey, M. (1973). Statistics for psychology. North Scituate: Duxbury Press.

Salmoni, A., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355–386.PubMedCrossRef

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.CrossRef

Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59–75). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., et al. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 273–281.PubMedCrossRef

Watkins, D. (1984). Students’ perceptions of factors influencing tertiary learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 3, 33–50.CrossRef

Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 677–691.CrossRef

Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 487–494.CrossRef

Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2004). Understanding the role of augmented feedback: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In A. M. Williams, N. J. Hodges, M. A. Scott, & M. L. J. Court (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 121–144). London: Routledge.

Titel: Feedback and intention during motor-skill learning: a connection with prospective memory
Auteurs: Arnaud Badets
Yannick Blandin
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0365-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2012

A successive-conditionalization approach to disjunctive and syllogistic reasoning

Sequential congruency effects: disentangling priming and conflict adaptation

Creative mood swings: divergent and convergent thinking affect mood in opposite ways

Expressiveness in musical emotions

Practice makes transfer of motor skills imperfect

The cost of serially chaining two cognitive operations