Average KR Schedule in Learning of Timing: Influence of Length for Summary Knowledge of Results and Task Complexity

Abstract

This experiment investigated the influence of length for average Knowledge of Results (KR) and task complexity on learning of timing in a barrier knock-down task. Participants (30 men and 30 women) attempted to press a goal button in 1200 msec. after pressing a start button. The participant was assigned into one of six groups by two tasks (simple and complex) and three feedback groups (100% KR, Average 3, Average 5). The simple and complex tasks required a participant to knock down one or three barriers before pressing a goal button. After a pretest without KR, participants practiced 60 trials of physical practice with one of the three following groups as a practice phase: one given the result of movement time after every trial (100% KR), a second given the average movement time after every third trial (Average 3), a third given the average movement time after every fifth trial (Average 5). Participants then performed a posttest with no-KR and two retention tests, taken 10 min. and 24 hr. after the posttest without KR. Analysis gave several findings. (1) On the complex task, the absolute constant error (|CE|) and the variable error (VE) were less than those on the simple task. (2) The |CE| and the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 groups were less than those of the Average 5 group in the practice phase, and the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 group were less than those of the Average 5 group on the retention tests. (3) In the practice phase, the |CE| and the VE on Blocks 1 and 2 were higher than on Blocks 5 and 6. (4) On the retention tests, the |CE| of the posttest was less than retention tests 1 and 2. And, the VE of the 100% KR and the Average 3 groups were less than that of the Average 5 group. These results suggest that the average feedback length of three trials and the given feedback information after every trial are advantageous to learning timing on this barrier knock-down task.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annett

(1959) Feedback and human behavior. Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin.

Blandin

, & Proteau

(2000) On the cognitive basis of observational learning: development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 846–867.

Henry

F. M.

(1968) Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. In Brown

R. C.

& Kenyon

G. S.

(Eds.), Classical studies on physical activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 331–340.

Magill

R. A.

(1989) Motor learning concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Magill

R. A.

(2001) Augmented feedback in motor skill. In Singer

R. N.

Hausenblas

H. A.

, & Janelle

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology. New York: Wiley. Pp. 86–114.

McCracken

H. D.

, & Stelmach

G. E.

(1977) A test of the schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 193–201.

Newell

K. M.

(1976) Motor learning without knowledge of results through the development of a response recognition mechanism. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 209–217.

Newell

K. M.

, & Shapiro

D. C.

(1976) Variability of practice and transfer of training: some evidence toward a schema view of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 233–243.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.

10.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1985) The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 188–200.

11.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1991a) Motor learning and performance: from principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

12.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1991b) Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: evidence and interpretations. In Requin

& Stelmach

G. E.

(Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp. 59–75.

13.

Schmidt

R. A.

, & Lee

T. D.

(1999) Motor control and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

14.

Schmidt

R. A.

, & White

J. L.

(1972) Evidence for an error detection mechanism in motor skills: a test of Adams' closed-loop theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 4, 143–153.

15.

Schmidt

R. A.

, & Wrisberg

C. A.

(2004) Motor learning and performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

16.

Schmidt

R. A.

Young

D. E.

Swinnen

, & Shapiro

D. C.

(1989) Summary knowledge of results for acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 352–359.

17.

Wulf

, & Schmidt

R. A.

(1996) Average KR degrades parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 371–381.

18.

Yao

Fischman

M. G.

, & Wang

Y. T.

(1994) Motor skill acquisition and retention as a function of average feedback, summary feedback, and performance variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 273–282.