Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Observation learning of a motor task: who and when?

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

Abstract

Observation contributes to motor learning. It was recently demonstrated that the observation of both a novice and an expert model (mixed observation) resulted in better learning of a complex spatiotemporal task than the observation of either a novice or an expert model. In experiment 1, we aimed to determine whether mixed observation better promotes learning due to the information that can be gained from two models who exhibit different skill levels or simply because multiple models, regardless of their level of expertise, better promote learning than would a single model. The results revealed that the observation of both an expert and a novice model resulted in better short-term retention than the observation of either two novice or two expert models. In experiment 2, we wanted to determine whether these benefits would last longer if physical practice trials were interspersed with observation. Mixed and (to some extent) expert observations resulted in better long-term retention than observation of a novice model. We suggest that alternating mixed/expert observation with physical practice trials makes one’s error more salient than when all observation trials are completed before one first starts performing the experimental task, which increases activation of the action observation network.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The naturally emerging relative timing used by individuals was determined in a pilot study. Specifically, three participants who did not take part in the present study were asked to complete the task in a TMT of 1,200 ms for 60 trials; no constraints were imposed on ITs. Participants received feedback only on TMT following each trial. Twenty practice trials allowed the participants to approach the goal TMT of 1,200 ms. Data from the remaining 40 trials revealed a stable relative timing pattern both within individuals and among different participants (the within- and between-participant variability fluctuated between 1.0 and 2.4 %; see also Blandin et al. 1999).

  2. The films of the first 10 participants in this study were independently rated by one of the authors (M.A.) and by the research assistant, which yielded a coefficient of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.852.

  3. In further support of this proposition, we had two additional groups observe either one novice model or one expert model. We contrasted their performance with that of the O2N and O2E groups in a three phases (pretest, 10-min retention, and 24-h retention) × two types of models (Novice vs. Expert) × two numbers of models (1 vs. 2) ANOVA. The variable error of TMT was significantly lower in either retention test for the participants who observed either one or two expert models than for those who observed novice model(s). This finding was the only significant difference relative to the type or number of models or any interaction involving these factors.

  4. The results of a supplementary analysis in which we contrasted the performance in the 10-min retention test of the three observation groups of experiment 1 to that of the three observation groups in experiment 2 revealed a significantly smaller RMSE in experiment 2 than in experiment 1, F (1, 72) = 20.9.

  5. The results of a supplementary analysis in which we contrasted the RMSE in the 24-h retention test of the three observation groups in experiment 2 to that of the physical practice group in experiment 1 revealed a significant main effect of group, F (3, 42) = 2.84, p = .049. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the MO + PP group had a significantly lower RMSE than the PP group (p = .02), whereas a similar trend was observed between the O1E + PP group and the PP group (p = .09); no difference was noted between the O1N + PP group and the PP group (p = .90).

References

  • Al-Abood SA, Davids KF, Bennett SJ (2001) Specificity of task constraints and effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners’ search during skill acquisition. J Motor Behav 33:295–305. doi:10.1080/00222890109601915

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Badets A, Blandin Y (2004) The role of knowledge of results frequency in learning through observation. J Motor Behav 36:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badets A, Blandin Y (2010) Feedback schedules for motor-skill learning: the similarities and differences between physical and observational practice. J Motor Behav 42:257–268. doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.497512

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L (1997) On the cognitive processes involved in the contextual interference effect. J Hum Mov Stud 32:211–233

    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-Hum Exp Psychol 53:846–867

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L, Alain C (1994) On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning. J Motor Behav 26:18–26. doi:10.1080/00222895.1994.9941657

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown LE, Wilson ET, Obhi SS, Gribble PL (2010) Effect of Trial Order and Error Magnitude on Motor Learning by Observing. J Neurophysiol 104:1409–1416. doi:10.1152/jn.01047.2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR et al (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J of Neurosci 13:400–404

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cisek P, Kalaska JF (2004) Neural correlates of mental rehearsal in dorsal premotor cortex. Nature 431:993–996. doi:10.1038/Nature03005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collier GL, Wright CE (1995) Temporal rescaling of sample and complex rations in rhythmic tapping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:602–627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 19:315–326. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cross ES, Liepelt R, Hamilton AFD, Parkinson J, Ramsey R, Stadler W, Prinz W (2012) Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network. Hum Brain Mapp 33:2238–2254. doi:10.1002/Hbm.21361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenbuerger T, Boutin A, Blandin Y, Shea CH, Panzer S (2012) Scheduling observational and physical practice: influence on the coding of simple motor sequences. Q J Exp Psychol 65:1260–1273. doi:10(1080/17470218),2011,654126

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Action representation and the inferior parietal lobule. Common Mech Percept Action 19:334–355

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes SJ, Elliott D, Bennett SJ (2010) General motor representations are developed during action-observation. Exp Brain Res 204:199–206. 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 55:593–607. doi:10.1080/02724980143000389

    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 Motor Behav 35:247–260. doi:10.1080/00222890309602138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges NJ, Williams AM, Hayes SJ, Breslin G (2007) What is modelled during observational learning? J Sport Sci 25:531–545. doi:10.1080/02640410600946860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koelewijn T, van Schie HT, Bekkering H, Oostenveld R, Jensen O (2008) Motor-cortical beta oscillations are modulated by correctness of observed action. Neuroimage 40:767–775. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, Magill RA (1983) The Locus of Contextual Interference in Motor-Skill Acquisition. J Exp Psychol Learn 9:730–746. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.9.4.730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, White MA (1990) Influence of an unskilled models practice schedule on observational motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 9:349–367. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(90)90008-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mattar AAG, Gribble PL (2005) Motor learning by observing. Neuron 46:153–160. 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 model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. J Hum Mov Stud 18:107–116

    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 68:56–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ong NT, Hodges NJ (2012) Mixing it up a little. How to schedule observational practice. In: Hodges NJ, Williams M (eds) Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 22–39

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt RA, Lee TD (2011) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 5th edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign

  • Shea JB, Morgan RL (1979) Contextual Interference Effects on the Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer of a Motor Skill. J Exp Psychol Human 5:179–187. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000) Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. J Motor Behav 32:27–36. doi:10.1080/00222890009601357

    Article  CAS  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 7:549–554. 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 Sport Sci 25:497–517. doi:10.1080/02640410600946779

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Discovery Grant (L.P.) provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de kinésiologie, Université de Montréal, Station Downtown, P.O. Box 6128, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Mathieu Andrieux & Luc Proteau

Authors
  1. Mathieu Andrieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Proteau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Proteau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andrieux, M., Proteau, L. Observation learning of a motor task: who and when?. Exp Brain Res 229, 125–137 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3598-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3598-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation