Elsevier

Human Movement Science

Volume 31, Issue 6, December 2012, Pages 1459-1472
Human Movement Science

Self-controlled knowledge of results: Age-related differences in motor learning, strategies, and error detection

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.07.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that a self-controlled KR schedule is advantageous for motor learning; however, the usefulness of a self-controlled KR context in older adults remains unknown. To address this gap in knowledge, we examined whether (1) the learning benefits of a self-controlled KR schedule are modulated by the age of the learner; (2) practicing in a self-controlled KR context concurrently strengthens the learner’s error detection mechanism, and (3) the KR strategy during acquisition changes as a function of practice trials completed and age. As a function of age, participants were quasirandomly assigned to either the self-control or yoked group resulting in four experimental groups (Self-Young, Yoked-Young, Self-Old, and Yoked-Old). The results revealed the Self-Young group: (1) demonstrated superior retention performance than all other groups (p < .05); (2) was more accurate in estimating motor performance than all other groups during retention (p < .05), and (3) self-reported a switch in their strategy for requesting KR during acquisition based on the number of practice trials completed. Collectively, our findings suggest that older adults do not demonstrate the same learning benefits of a self-controlled KR context as younger adults which may be attributed to differences in KR strategies.

Highlights

► Unlike younger adults, older adults did not show learning benefits from self-control. ► Younger adults self-reported a switch in KR strategy as a function of practice trials completed. ► A self-controlled KR schedule enhanced error detection abilities in younger adults.

Introduction

Research has unequivocally revealed self-controlled practice to be a learning variable when performers controlled the frequency of observing a modeled demonstration, the use of physical assistive devices, and the organization of practice repetitions (see Wulf, 2007 for a review). Similarly, a self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) schedule has proven more effective for motor learning compared to those not provided control (i.e., yoked group) for single task (Chen et al., 2002, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2005, Patterson et al., 2011) and multiple task learning (Patterson & Carter, 2010).

The learning advantages of self-controlled practice are speculated to be the result of an increased motivation to learn (Boekaerts, 1996, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2005, Winne, 1995, Wulf, 2007), that practice conditions are individualized to the performers information processing capabilities (Chen et al., 2002, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Keetch and Lee, 2007), and task information is requested only when necessary (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Winne, 2005, Wulf, 2007, Zimmerman, 1989). Learners also utilize deliberate strategies when provided the opportunity to control task-related information (e.g., KR after good trials: Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Patterson and Carter, 2010).

The preference for KR after perceived good trials challenges theoretical accounts regarding the role of KR in resolving error; that is, minimizing the differences between the actual and the desired performance (Adams, 1971, Schmidt, 1975). The preference for feedback after good trials has been interpreted as a motivational factor during skill acquisition (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002) and the perception that less cognitive effort is required to reproduce a successful response compared to the cognitive effort required to update a motor plan for an unsuccessful response (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2005, Koehen et al., 2008). The benefits of self-control have been primarily demonstrated in younger adults (see Wulf, 2007 for a review) and more recently in 10 year old children (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Laroque de Medeiros, Kaefer, & Tani, 2008). In contrast, the usefulness of self-controlled practice in older adults has received minimal attention in the motor learning literature and consequently remains inconclusive (Patterson, Sanli, & Adkin, 2008).

Findings from the cognitive learning literature offer insight into the relationship between self-controlled practice and older adults. Compared to younger adults, older adults self-select practice strategies requiring minimal cognitive effort (e.g., recognition) for word association tasks and novel arithmetic problems compared to the cognitively effortful strategies (e.g., retrieval) considered advantageous for learning (D’Eredita and Hoyer, 2010, Hertzog et al., 2007, Rogers and Gilbert, 1997, Rogers et al., 2000, Touron and Hertzog, 2004a, Touron and Hertzog, 2004b, Touron et al., 2004). Older adults’ propensity to individualize a learning context that places low demands on their cognitive processes not only results in a less than favorable learning context but also suggests an explicit awareness of their age-related changes to information processing abilities and working memory capacity (Bäckman et al., 2010, Bäckman et al., 2000, Fjell and Walhovd, 2010, Luo and Craik, 2008, Salthouse, 1996). In the motor skill learning literature, older adults have demonstrated similar learning advantages to their younger adult counterparts in learning contexts believed to place heightened demands on their information processing (i.e., cognitively effortful) (e.g., random practice: Jamieson and Rogers, 2000, Lin et al., 2010; reduced relative frequency of KR: Carnahan et al., 1996, Guadagnoli et al., 2002). However, these practice contexts were externally determined by the researcher. For younger adults, a learner-controlled practice context has proven to positively impact motor skill acquisition. Yet for older adults, it currently remains unknown. The opportunity for the older adult to individualize their learning to match their changing information processing could in fact prove favorable for motor learning. However, based on the cognitive learning literature, the effort required by the older adult learner to individualize their learning context is perhaps a less than desirable method of facilitating their skill learning. For the present experiment, we were interested in determining if older adults would individualize a practice context that would place low demands on their information processing (i.e., frequent KR request) to the detriment of learning, or, individualize a learning context that optimally challenged their information processing abilities to the advantage of learning.

To address this gap in knowledge, the primary purpose of this experiment was to examine whether the learning advantages of a self-controlled KR schedule are modulated by the age of the learner. Based on the cognitive learning literature and age-related changes to information processing and working memory, we expected frequent KR requests during practice for older adults, at the expense of learning. We were also interested in examining the strategies for requesting KR as a function of age and number of practice trials completed. Previous research asked participants to self-report a singular response regarding their KR strategy at the end of the acquisition phase (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Patterson and Carter, 2010, Patterson et al., 2011); however, a limitation of this methodology is that learning is a dynamic process and participants may adjust their KR strategy as a function of practice trials completed. To address this limitation, participants were asked to self-report their KR strategy for trials 1–30 (hereafter termed 1st half) separate from trials 31–60 (hereafter termed 2nd half). Lastly, we were interested in determining if engaging in a deliberate KR strategy also developed the error detection and correction mechanism. According to the guidance hypothesis (Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter, 1984), an effective KR schedule prevents a dependence on KR by facilitating the ability to interpret and utilize intrinsic feedback sources. However, determining if a self-controlled KR schedule concurrently strengthens error detection abilities is unknown. Previous research has revealed that as practice progresses, participants typically decrease their number of KR requests (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, Patterson and Carter, 2010). As a result, we predicted an initial increased reliance on KR early in practice to be replaced by a greater reliance on task-related intrinsic feedback later in practice, consequently developing the error detection and correction mechanism of the self-control groups.

Section snippets

Participants

Twenty younger adults (Self-Young, n = 10, M age = 22, SD = 1.15; Yoked-Young, n = 10, M age = 22.7, SD = 0.95) and 20 older adults (Self-Old, n = 10, M age = 69.9, SD = 6.05; Yoked-Old, n = 10, M age = 69.2, SD = 6.11) participated in the experiment. There were an equal number of males (n = 5) and females (n = 5) in each experimental group. All participants scoring ⩾25 on the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) and 100 on the Modified Barthel Index (BI) (Shah, Vanclay, & Cooper, 1989) were

KR requests during acquisition

The proportion of KR requests for blocks 1-10 of acquisition for the Self-Young and Self-Old groups were 70%, 73%, 55%, 68%, 60%, 61%, 60%, 68%, 73%, & 58% and 77%, 80%, 70%, 68%, 72%, 68%, 72%, 68%, 83%, & 78%, respectively. The relative frequency that KR was requested throughout acquisition by the Self-Young and the Self-Old groups were 65% (SD = 32 %) and 74% (SD = 39 %), respectively. The differences between groups over the course of the acquisition period for proportion of KR trials did not

Discussion

The purpose of this experiment was three-fold. First, we were interested in determining whether the learning advantages of a self-controlled KR context would be modulated by the age of the learner with the expectation that in an attempt to alleviate the cognitive demands associated with no-KR trials (see Wulf & Shea, 2004 for review), older adults would request KR more frequently than younger adults at the expense of learning. Second, we were interested in determining if participants would

Conclusion

In summary, the results of the present experiment suggest the learning benefits of a self-controlled KR schedule are modulated by the age of the learner. Although recent research found a self-controlled KR schedule enhanced motor learning in children (Chiviacowsky et al., 2008), our results suggest these advantages do not extend to older adults. Data from the Self-Young group not only provides further support to the utility of self-controlled practice in younger adults but also adds to our

Acknowledgments

This experiment was supported by a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research awarded to the first author. The authors thank Alex Kartalianakis for her help in participant recruitment and testing, and Dr. Diane Ste-Marie and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References (49)

  • L. Bäckman et al.

    Age-related cognitive deficits mediated by changes in the striatal dopamine system

    American Journal of Psychiartry

    (2000)
  • M. Boekaerts

    Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation

    European Psychologist

    (1996)
  • M. Boekaerts et al.

    Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention

    Applied Psychology: An International Review

    (2005)
  • H. Carnahan et al.

    The influence of summary knowledge of results and aging on motor learning

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (1996)
  • D.D. Chen et al.

    Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: The use of self-regulated feedback information

    Journal of Human Movement Studies

    (2002)
  • S. Chiviacowsky et al.

    Self-controlled feedback. Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it?

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (2002)
  • S. Chiviacowsky et al.

    Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (2005)
  • S. Chiviacowsky et al.

    Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year-old children

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (2008)
  • M.A. D’Eredita et al.

    Transfer of instances in cognitive skill learning: Adult age differences

    Experimental Aging Research

    (2010)
  • L.L. Drag et al.

    Contemporary Review 2009: Cognitive aging

    Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology

    (2010)
  • P.M. Fitts et al.

    Human Performance

    (1967)
  • A.M. Fjell et al.

    Structural brain changes in aging: Courses, causes and cognitive consequences

    Reviews in the Neurosciences

    (2010)
  • M.A. Guadagnoli et al.

    Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning

    Journal of Motor Behavior

    (2004)
  • S. Hansen et al.

    Self-control of feedback during motor learning: Accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked group with self-control over feedback

    Journal of Motor Behavior

    (2011)
  • Cited by (36)

    • Challenge, motivation, and effort: Neural and behavioral correlates of self-control of difficulty during practice

      2019, Biological Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although self-control of feedback is distinct from self-control of difficulty, there is good empirical evidence to suggest that these manipulations may share underlying mechanisms, given their performance contingent nature. For instance, feedback requests are often dependent on trial outcome (good vs poor; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002; Patterson & Carter, 2010), the relative amount of practice (e.g., Carter et al., 2016; Carter & Patterson, 2012), or for strategic reasons (e.g., Carter et al., 2016; Laughlin et al., 2015). In order to address motivational and information-processing hypotheses, this study presents a secondary analysis of practice data from a previous study (Leiker et al., in press) that focused on learning outcomes.

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

      2019, Human Movement Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      We offer this conclusion based on the fact that here, following recommendation forwarded by Lohse et al. (2016) to increase replication of experiments, we used tasks and procedures previously found in the literature and did not find significant benefits for the self-controlled feedback condition over the traditional yoked condition. Additionally, the low number of publications that fail to identify typical self-controlled feedback benefits—to our knowledge there are only two (Carter & Patterson, 2012; Carter et al., 2017)—suggest a publication bias limiting an adequate discussion of the magnitude and mechanisms that support said benefits. Finally, given the combined findings that (1) a yoked group who was encouraged to error estimate showed increased performance to that of a traditional yoked group, (2), that performance estimation ability was positively related to motor performance in retention and transfer, while (3) psychological measures of autonomy, competence, or task enjoyment/motivation were not significantly related to motor performance in retention and transfer, and (4) that those who were allowed to choose their feedback schedule did not show greater scores on psychological measures of autonomy, competence, or task enjoyment/motivation than those who were not, it is suggested that the contributions of informational factors to self-controlled feedback advantages are greater than motivational contributions.

    • Good-vs. poor-trial feedback in motor learning: The role of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation across levels of task difficulty

      2018, Learning and Instruction
      Citation Excerpt :

      Similarly, when experimenter-controlled feedback is provided after relatively good trials, it has resulted in more effective performance in retention tests than when it is provided after relatively poor trials (e.g., Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007; Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Wally, & Borges, 2009). Whilst such findings have been argued to suggest an important role for motivation in skill learning (Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010), researchers have recently shown that the strategies for requesting KR may vary as a function of the number of practice trials completed (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 2012; Carter, Rathwell, & Ste-Marie, 2016), with KR being requested only after relatively good trials later in practice. Moreover, researchers have also shown that awareness of KR content (i.e., whether KR is given after the three best or three worst trials) results in superior learning, irrespective of whether the KR reflects good or poor trials (Patterson & Azizieh, 2012).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text