Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00426-016-0775-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Concurrent feedback provided during acquisition can enhance performance of novel tasks. The ‘guidance hypothesis’ predicts that feedback provision leads to dependence and poor performance in its absence. However, appropriately structured feedback information provided through sound (‘sonification’) may not be subject to this effect. We test this directly using a rhythmic bimanual shape-tracing task in which participants learned to move at a 4:3 timing ratio. Sonification of movement and demonstration was compared to two other learning conditions: (1) Sonification of task demonstration alone and (2) completely silent practice (control). Sonification of movement emerged as the most effective form of practice, reaching significantly lower error scores than control. Sonification of solely the demonstration, which was expected to benefit participants by perceptually unifying task requirements, did not lead to better performance than control. Good performance was maintained by participants in the Sonification condition in an immediate retention test without feedback, indicating that the use of this feedback can overcome the guidance effect. On a 24-h retention test, performance had declined and was equal between groups. We argue that this and similar findings in the feedback literature are best explained by an ecological approach to motor skill learning which places available perceptual information at the highest level of importance.
Supplementary material 1 (WMV 12290 kb)
Chadabe, J. (2002). The limitations of mapping as a structural descriptive in electronic instruments. In NIME’02 Proceedings of the 2002 conference on New interfaces for musical expression, May 24- 26, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 1–5).
Dyer, J., Stapleton, P., & Rodger, M. W. (2015). Sonification as concurrent augmented feedback for motor skill learning and the importance of mapping design. The Open Psychology Journal, 8(3), 1–11.
Fitch, W., & Kramer, G. (1994). Sonifying the body electric: superiority of an auditory over a visual display in a complex, multivariate system. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Auditory display: sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces (pp. 307–325). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Flowers, J. H. (2005). Thirteen Years of Reflection on Auditory Graphing: Promises, Pitfalls, and Potential New Directions. In Proceedings of ICAD 05- Eleventh Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display, Limerick, Ireland, July 6–9.
Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (1978). Skill Acquisition: An event approach with special reference to searching for the optimum of a function of several variables. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information Processing in Motor Control and Learning. New York: Academic Press.
Gaver, W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. CrossRef
Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Heitger, M. H., Ronsse, R., Dhollander, T., Dupont, P., Caeyenberghs, K., & Swinnen, S. P. (2012). Motor learning-induced changes in functional brain connectivity as revealed by means of graph-theoretical network analysis. NeuroImage, 61(3), 633–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.067. CrossRefPubMed
Hermann, T., Hunt, A., & Neuhoff, J. (Eds.). (2011). The sonification handbook (1st ed.). Berlin: Logos Publishing House.
Kelso, J. A. S., Scholz, J. P., & Schoner, G. (1986). Nonequilibrium phase transitions in coordinated biological motion: critical fluctuations. Physics Letters A, 118(6), 279–284. CrossRef
Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Berger, J. (2006). The sound of one arm swinging: A model for multidimensional auditory display of physical motion. In 12th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD), London, UK, June 20–23. International Community on Auditory Display.
Leman, M. (2008). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: evidence and interpretations. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59–75). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-3626-6.
Stienstra, J., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Embodying complexity through movement sonification. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian chapter international conference on computer- human interaction: facing complexity (pp. 39–44). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2037296.2037310.
Summers, J. J., Rosenbaum, D. A., Burns, B. D., & Ford, S. K. (1993). Production of polyrhythms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(2), 416–428. PubMed
Tinazzi, M., Fiaschi, A., Frasson, E., Fiorio, M., Cortese, F., & Aglioti, S. M. (2002). Deficits of temporal discrimination in dystonia are independent from the spatial distance between the loci of tactile stimulation. Movement Disorders : Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 17(2), 333–338. doi: 10.1002/mds.10019. CrossRef
- Transposing musical skill: sonification of movement as concurrent augmented feedback enhances learning in a bimanual task
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg