Skip to main content
Log in

Learning through observation: a combination of expert and novice models favors learning

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Observation of an expert or novice model promotes the learning of a motor skill. In two experiments, we determined the effects of a mixed observation schedule (a combination of expert and novice models) on the learning of a sequential timing task. In Experiment 1, participants observed a novice, expert, or both novice and expert models. The results of retention/transfer tests revealed that all observation groups and a physical practice group learned the task and outperformed a control group. However, observing a novice model was not as effective as observing expert and mixed models. Importantly, a mixed schedule of novice and expert observation resulted in a more stable movement time and better generalization of the imposed relative timing pattern than observation of either a novice or expert model alone. In Experiment 2, we aimed to determine whether a certain type of novice performance (highly variable, with or without error reduction with practice) in a mixed observation schedule would improved motor learning. The observation groups performed as well as a physical practice group and significantly better than a control group. No significant difference was observed with the type of novice model used in a mixed schedule of observation. The results suggest that mixed observation provides an accurate template of the movement (expert observation) that is enhanced when contrasted with the performance of less successful models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Depending on task difficulty and the number of practice trials performed, it could be argued that observation of a novice model provides information relative to a novice performance in the early stages of training and a near expert performance at the end of the model’s training session.

  2. For all dependent variables, we also computed additional analyses in which the performance of the different groups was contrasted independently between (a) the pre-test and immediate retention test and (b) the 10-min and the 24-h retention tests. In addition, in the analyses contrasting the 10-min and the 24-h retention tests, the control group was included or was not included in independent sets of analyses. The results of all of these analyses did not significantly change the findings reported in the main text. Therefore, we opted to present the data using the more economical format.

References

  • Adams JA (1986) Use of the model’s knowledge of results to increase the observer’s performance. J Hum Mov Stu 12(2):89–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Abood SA, Davids K, Bennett SJ (2001) Specificity of task constraints and effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners’ search during skill acquisition. J Mot Behav 33(3):295–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Badets A, Blandin Y, Wright DL, Shea CH (2006) Error detection processes during observational learning. Res Q Exercise Sport 77(2):177–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates AT, Patel TP, Liddle PF (2005) External behavior monitoring mirrors internal behavior monitoring - Error-related negativity for observed errors. J Psychophysiol 19(4):281–288. doi:10.1027/0269-8803.19.4.281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird G, Heyes C (2005) Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. J Exp Psychol Human 31(2):262–275. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black CB, Wright DL (2000) Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production? Res Q Exercise Sport 71(4):331–339

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L (2000) On the cognitive basis of observational learning: development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. Q J Exp Psychol-A 53(3):846–867

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L, Alain C (1994) On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning. J Mot Behav 26(1):18–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Lhuisset L, Proteau L (1999) Cognitive processes underlying observational learning of motor skills. Q J Exp Psychol-A 52(4):957–979

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JJ, Dean NJ (2010) Specificity in practice benefits learning in novice models and variability in demonstration benefits observational practice. Psychol Res 74(3):313–326. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0254-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, … Freund HJ (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13(2):400–404

  • Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU, Zihlman K, Wright DL (2008) Observational practice of relative but not absolute motion features in a single-limb multi-joint coordination task. Exp Brain Res 191:157–169. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1512-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll WR, Bandura A (1982) The role of visual monitoring in observational learning of action patterns: making the unobservable observable. J Mot Behav 14(2):153–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cisek P, Kalaska JF (2004) Neural correlates of mental rehearsal in dorsal premotor cortex. Nature 431(7011):993–996. doi:10.1038/nature03005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collier GL, Wright CE (1995) Temporal rescaling of simple and complex ratios in rhythmic tapping. J Exp Psychol Human 21(3):602–627. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cross ES, Schmitt PJ, Grafton ST (2007) Neural substrates of contextual interference during motor learning support a model of active preparation. J Cognitive Neurosci 19(11):1854–1871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross ES, Kraemer DJM, Hamilton AFD, Kelley WM, Grafton ST (2009) Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cereb Cortex 19(2):315–326. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Decety J, Grezes J, Costes N, Perani D, Jeannerod M, Procyk E, … Fazio F (1997) Brain activity during observation of actions. Influence of action content and subject’s strategy. Brain 120(Pt 10):1763–1777

  • De Jaeger D, Proteau L (2003) The relative efficacy of different forms of knowledge of results for the learning of a new relative timing pattern. Q J Exp Psychol-A 56(4):621–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin JM, Proteau L (2000) The role of scheduling in learning through observation. J Mot Behav 32(3):268–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dushanova J, Donoghue J (2010) Neurons in primary motor cortex engaged during action observation. Eur J Neurosci 31(2):386–398. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07067.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari M (1996) Observing the observer: self-regulation in the observational learning of motor skills. Dev Rev 16(2):203–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey SH, Gerry VE (2006) Modulation of neural activity during observational learning of actions and their sequential orders. J Neurosci 26(51):13194–13201. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3914-06.2006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese V, Fogassi L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Action representation and the inferior parietal lobule. In: Prinz W, Hommel B (eds) Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention & performance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 247–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton ST, Fadiga L, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Promotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage 6(4):231–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse SW, Geisser S (1959) On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes SJ, Elliott D, Bennett SJ (2010) General motor representations are developed during action-observation. Exp Brain Res 204(2):199–206. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2303-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes CM, Foster CL (2002) Motor learning by observation: evidence from a serial reaction time task. Q J Exp Psychol-A 55(2):593–607. doi:10.1080/02724980143000389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges NJ, Chua R, Franks IM (2003) The role of video in facilitating perception and action of a novel coordination movement. J Mot Behav 35(3):247–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges NJ, Williams AM, Hayes SJ, Breslin G (2007) What is modelled during observational learning? J Sports Sci 25(5):531–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, White MA (1990) Influence of an unskilled model’s practice schedule on observational motor learning. Hum Movement Sci 9(3–5):349–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ (1994) Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest 46(3):328–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin CH, Fisher BE, Winstein CJ, Wu AD, Gordon J (2008) Contextual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. J Mot Behav 40(6):578–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CH, Fisher BE, Wu AD, Ko YA, Lee LY, Winstein CJ (2009) Neural correlate of the contextual interference effect in motor learning: a kinematic analysis. J Mot Behav 41(3):232–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CH, Winstein CJ, Fisher BE, Wu AD (2010) Neural correlates of the contextual interference effect in motor learning: a transcranial magnetic stimulation investigation. J Mot Behav 42(4):223–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martens R, Burwitz L, Zuckerman J (1976) Modeling effects on motor performance. Res Q 47(2):277–291

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mattar AAG, Gribble PL (2005) Motor learning by observing. Neuron 46(1):153–160. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.02.009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Caird JK (1990) Correct and learning models and the use of the model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. J Hum Mov Stud 18(3):107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Meyer KN (1997) Learning versus correct models: influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Res Q Exercise Sport 68(1):56–61

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Weiss MR, Ross D (1989) Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: an integrated approach. Exercise Sport Sci R 17:475–513

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miltner WHR, Brauer J, Hecht H, Trippe R, Coles MGH (2004) Parallel brain activity for self-generated and observed errors. In: Ullsperger M, Falkenstein M (eds) Errors, conflicts, and the brain: current opinions on performance monitoring. MPI of Cognitive Neuroscience, Leipzig, pp 124–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock BJ, Lee TD (1992) Effects of the model’s skill level on observational motor learning. Res Q Exercise Sport 63(1):25–29

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt RA, Bjork RA (1992) New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychol Sci 3(4):207–217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt RA, Lee TD (2005) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. Human Kinetics, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully DM, Newell KM (1985) Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills: toward a visual perception perspective. J Hum Movement Stud 11(4):169–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane MS, Stevens M, Harenski CL, Kiehl KA (2008) Neural correlates of the processing of another’s mistakes: a possible underpinning for social and observational learning. Neuroimage 42(1):450–459. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000) Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. J Mot Behav 32(1):27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield FN (1961) Theoretical consideration in the learning of complex sequential task from demonstration and practice. In: Lumsdaine AA (ed) Student response in programmed instruction. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 13–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Trempe M, Sabourin M, Rohbanfard H, Proteau L (2011) Observation learning versus physical practice leads to different consolidation outcomes in a movement timing task. Exp Brain Res 209(2):181–192. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2540-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Schie HT, Mars RB, Coles MGH, Bekkering H (2004) Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nat Neurosci 7(5):549–554. doi:10.1038/nn1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt S, Thomaschke R (2007) From visuo-motor interactions to imitation learning: Behavioural and brain imaging studies. J Sports Sci 25(5):497–517. doi:10.1080/02640410600946779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks DL, Anderson LP (2000) The interaction of observational learning with overt practice: effects on motor skill learning. Acta Psychol Amst 104(2):259–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weir PL, Leavitt JL (1990) The effects of model’s skill level and model’s knowledge of results on the acquisition of an aiming task. Hum Movement Sci 9(3–5):369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf G, Mornell A (2008) Insights about practice from the perspective of motor learning: a review. Music Perform Res 2:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wymbs NF, Grafton ST (2009) Neural substrates of practice structure that support future off-line learning. J Neurophysiol 102(4):2462–2476. doi:10.1152/jn.00315.2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Proteau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohbanfard, H., Proteau, L. Learning through observation: a combination of expert and novice models favors learning. Exp Brain Res 215, 183–197 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2882-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2882-x

Keywords

Navigation