Feedback Schedules for Motor-Skill Learning: The Similarities and Differences between Physical and Observational Practice

ABSTRACT

In 2 experiments, the authors assessed different knowledge of results (KR) schedules for observational and physical practice. In Experiment 1, participants had to learn a sequence timing task under either a bandwidth (KR being delivered when participants’ performance was outside a predefined bandwidth or range) or yoked (same number of KRs provided as the bandwidth group) KR procedure. The results show that for both practice conditions the bandwidth KR schedule was more effective in promoting learning than the yoked schedule. During Experiment 2, a KR frequency was controlled (100% or 33% KR) and the data indicate that a reduced KR frequency only enhanced the learning of observers. Because a low KR frequency improves the sensory process controlling motor learning, the authors propose that action observation may be perceptual in nature.

Keywords:

• feedback
• observational learning
• relative timing
• sequence task

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Yves Almecija (CNRS UMR 6234) for his valuable comments for the editing of the films used in the present study. Experiment 2 formed part of Arnaud Badets's PhD program. Part of this study was presented at the conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Savannah, 2003. Arnaud Badets is a tenured researcher at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Yannick Blandin is a Professor at the University of Poitiers in France.

Notes

1. The bandwidth KR procedure indirectly manipulates the relative KR frequency: as performance improves with practice, the amount of quantitative KR decreases. Because a reduced KR frequency influences motor learning (e.g., Badets & Blandin, 2004; Winstein & Schmidt, 1990), it must be controlled during the acquisition phase to interpret the bandwidth KR effect per se (for similar procedures in the observational and physical contexts, see Badets & Blandin, 2005; Lee & Carnahan, 1990, respectively). To avoid confounding the effects of bandwidth and KR frequency effects on learning, it is necessary to employ a yoked group that receives quantitative KR for the same trials as the bandwidth group.

2. The model was an experimenter who was filmed performing 96 trials. The camera was located above the model's right shoulder to capture visual information on the arm and the targets, and the apparatus appeared visually similar for the models and the observers. The model performed, on average, at the same level as the physical practice bandwidth group. Errors on the ATGs averaged 81.30 ms (SD = 74.6), and errors on the RTG averaged 10% (SD = 7.7). The relative frequency of KR for the physical practice group and the model was 31.25% for the RTG, with 10 KR per ATG. The relative frequency of KR for the model decreased from the first block to the third block (50%, 25%, and 18.75% KR for the first, second, and third blocks, respectively), which was similar to the pattern exhibited by the physical practice bandwidth group.

3. We chose to use the same bandwidth KR and the same procedure as Lai and Shea (1999).

4. The relative KR frequency is the ratio of the number of KR presentations to the total number of practice trials, expressed as a percentage (Winstein & Schmidt, 1990).

5. The model was an experimenter and was filmed performing 99 trials on the task. As for Experiment 1, the camera was located above the model's right shoulder to capture the visual information of the arm and the targets, and to keep the vision of the apparatus similar for the models and the observers. The model's ATG errors averaged 19.55 ms (± 17.3 ms), with a mean value of 3.8% (± 0.8%) for the RTG. The sound level of the video recording was adjusted to reproduce what would be heard during physical practice.