A linear-positioning task was learned over 1, 3, or 10 practice trials under high feedback (HFB-augmented position cues) or low feedback (LFB—no positional cue augmentation). Subjects' abilities to sustain accurate performance without IF and to appraise the magnitude and direction of errors were examined during 10 further test trials. Absolute errors were least after 10 practices with HFB, as predicted by closed-loop theory. However, HFB apparently caused performance inferior to LFB when only one practice trial was permitted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1971, 3, 111–149.
2.
AdamsJ. A.Feedback and the closed-loop model. In WilliamsI. D.WankelL. M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Canadian Psycho-Motor Learning and Sport Psychology Symposium, University of Waterloo, October, 1972.
3.
AdamsJ. A.GoetzE. T.MarshallP. H.Response feedback and motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 92, 391–397.
4.
AdamsJ. A.GoetzE. T.Feedback and practice as variables in error detection and correction. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1973, 5, 217–224.
5.
SchmidtR. A.WhiteJ. L., Evidence for an error-detection mechanism in motor skills: A test of Adams' closed-loop theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1972, 4, 143–153.
6.
WilliamsI. D., Augmentation and early development of the perceptual trace. In WilliamsI. D.WankelL. M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Canadian Psycho-Motor Learning and Sport Psychology Symposium, University of Waterloo, October, 1972.
7.
WilliamsI. D.RoyE. A.Closed-loop control of a ballistic response. Paper presented at the 3rd Canadian Psycho-Motor Learning and Sport Psychology Symposium, Vancouver, October, 1971.
8.
WilliamsI. D.WankelL. M., (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Psycho-Motor Learning and Sport Psychology Symposium, University of Waterloo, October, 1972.
