Contrary to predictions from early views on motor learning, recent studies have shown that reduction of the relative frequency of feedback regarding the success in achieving a goal (knowledge of results = KR) depresses performance during acquisition; whereas, in retention and transfer tests, an inverse relationship is found between performance and KR. The present study investigated the effect of reduced relative frequency of KR on the ability to calibrate kinesthetic awareness of 90 healthy young and older subjects. Across three task versions of kinesthetic acuity, practice conditions of 100% KR were compared with 33% equally spread and 33% faded practice conditions. The results of this study show that reduced relative KR frequency depressed the performance of the older subjects but raised the performance of the younger subjects in the acquisition phase. In retention, reduced relative KR frequency produced more effective performance than 100% KR, with no difference between the two age groups or the two 33% KR frequency conditions. These results seem to imply that treatment of patients on the ability to calibrate sensory awareness is benefited by providing these patients with KR at a low frequency.
AdamsJ. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150.
2.
BairdI. S., & HughesG. H. (1972). Effects of frequency and specificity of information feedback on the acquisition and extinction of a positioning task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 567–572.
3.
BilodeauE. A., & BilodeauI. M. (1958). Variable frequency knowledge of results and the learning of a simple skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 379–383.
4.
BilodeauE. A., & BilodeauI. M. (1961). Motor skill learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 243–280.
5.
BilodeauI. M. (1966). Information feedback. In BilodeauE. A. (Ed.), Acquisition of skill (pp. 255–296). New York: Academic Press.
6.
BurgessM. K. (1989). Motor control and the role of occupational therapy: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 345–348.
7.
CohenH. (1989). Occupational therapy and motor control. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 289–290.
8.
DellonA. L. (1984). Functional sensation and its reeducation. Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 11, 95–99.
9.
GlinerJ. A. (1985). Purposeful activity in motor learning theory: An event approach to motor skill acquisition. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 28–34.
10.
HerdmanS. J. (1983). Effect of experience on recovery following CNS lesions. Physical Therapy, 63, 51–55.
11.
HoL., & SheaJ. B. (1978). Effects of relative frequency of knowledge of results on retention of a motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 859–866.
12.
HoweM. L., & BrainerdC. J. (1988). Cognitive development in adulthood: Progress in cognitive development research. New York: Springer Verlag.
13.
JamsT. (1989). Contextual interference and task classification effects on acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor skills by female adults [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. New York: New York University.
14.
JarusT., & LoyterY. (1995). The effect of kinesthetic stimulation on the acquisition and retention of a gross motor skill. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 23–29.
15.
JohnsonR. W.WicksG. G., & Ben-SiraD. (1981). Practice in the absence of knowledge of results: Motor skill retention. [Unpublished manuscript.] University of Minnesota.
16.
KauslerD. H. (1991). Experimental psychology, cognition, and human aging. New York: Springer Verlag.
17.
LaszloJ. I., & BairstowP. J. (1980). The measurement of kinesthetic sensitivity in children and adults, Developmental Medical Child Neurology, 22, 454–464.
18.
LeeT. D.WhiteM. A., & CarnahanH. (1990). On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning: Exploring the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 191–208.
19.
MagillR. A. (1984). Knowledge of results and skill acquisition. In ZaichkowskyL. D. & FuchsC. Z. (Eds.), The psychology of motor behavior: Development, control, learning and performance (pp. 51–63). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.
20.
MagillR. A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
21.
McGuiganF. J. (1959). The effect of precision, delay, and schedule of knowledge of results on performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 79–84.
22.
MoseyA. C. (1981). Configuration of a profession. New York: Raven Press.
23.
MulderT., & HulstynW. (1984). Sensory feedback therapy and theoretical knowledge of motor control and learning. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 63, 226–244.
24.
PhilipsC. A. (1989). Hand therapy. In TromblyC. A., (Ed.), Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction (2nd ed.; pp. 512–530). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
25.
PooleJ. L. (1991). Application of motor learning principles in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 531–537.
26.
SageG. H. (1984). Motor learning and control: A new neuropsychological approach. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
27.
SalmoniA. W.SchmidtR. A., & WalterC. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355–386.
28.
SchmidtR. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.
29.
SchmidtR. A. (Ed.). (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
30.
SchmidtR. A. (1991). Motor learning principles for physical therapy. In ListerM. J. (Ed.), Contemporary management of motor control problems (pp. 49–63). Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy.
31.
SchmidtR. A.YoungD. E.SwinnenS., & ShapiroD. C. (1989). Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 352–359.
32.
SheaJ. B., & MorganR. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.
33.
ThorndikeE. L. (1914). Educational psychology. New York: Columbia University.
34.
TromblyC. A., & ScottA. D. (1989). Evaluation and treatment of somatosensory sensation. In TromblyC. A. (Ed.), Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction (2nd ed.; pp. 41–54). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
35.
Van SantA. F. (1991a). Life-span motor development. In ListerM. J. (Ed.), Contemporary management of motor control problems (pp. 77–83). Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy.
36.
Van SantA. F. (1991b). Should the normal motor developmental sequence be used as a theoretical model to progress adult patients? In ListerM. J. (Ed.), Contemporary management of motor control problems (pp. 95–97). Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy.
37.
WinsteinC. J., & SchmidtR. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of result enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 677–691.
38.
WulfG., & SchmidtR. A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 748–756.
39.
YoungD. E., & SchmidtR. A. (1992). Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 261–273.
