Auditory Model Enhances Relative-Timing Learning

Abstract

In recent experiments (Q. Lai, C. H. Shea, & M. Little, 2000; C. H. Shea, G. Wulf, J. Park, & B. Gaunt, 2001), auditory models were found to be effective in enhancing relative-timing performance and learning in constant practice conditions. In the present experiment, the authors examined (a) whether an auditory model also enhances relative-timing learning in blocked and random practice conditions and (b) whether experience with the auditory model enhances participants' ability to produce the response by using different effector sequences. Participants (N = 48) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 acquisition conditions in which an auditory model was or was not present and the practice schedule was blocked or random. In the acquisition phase, all participants alternately pressed 2 keys on a keyboard in an attempt to match 5 goal intervals. In the auditory model conditions, a sequence of tones was played before each acquisition trial. The tones represented the correct timing sequence for that trial. One retention and 3 effector-transfer tests without feedback were administered about 24 hr after the completion of acquisition. The results indicated that the auditory model enhanced relative-timing performance and learning independently of practice schedule. In addition, the auditory model enhanced relative timing on the effector-transfer tests, but absolute-timing performance and learning were not affected by the auditory model. Thus, relative timing was found to be effector independent but absolute timing was not.

Proportional and nonproportional transfer of movement sequences

“…If this is the case, refinements in motor commands (Jordan, 1995; would be expected to occur earlier in practice when the response structure is simpler and later when the response structure is more complex. This proposal, which also suggests that the movement structure should be developed prior to specific enhancement to the direct movement commands, is also consistent with the findings of Lai et al (2002). They found that practice conditions that facilitated the development of the response structure should occur before practice that is aimed at enhancing movement parameters.…”

“…More specifically, it is predicted, based on results of motor program theory research on parameter transfer (e.g., Shapiro, 1977;Whitacre & Shea, 2000) and recent effector transfer research using both simple (e.g., Lai et al, 2002;Whitacre & Shea, 2002) and more complex (e.g., Park & Shea, 2002; sequences that participants would be capable of adapting the movement pattern to unpracticed, but proportional spatial transfer conditions. This type of transfer would be effective because the relative pattern of muscle activation would only have to be rescaled to satisfy the changed spatial requirements.…”

“…Shea and colleagues (e.g., Lai, Shea, Bruechert, & Little, 2002;Park & Shea, 2002Whitacre & Shea, 2002) have demonstrated, for example, that performers can transfer a learned movement sequence, initially learned using one limb, to the contralateral limb or a different muscle group on the same limb. Remarkably, not only was the overall movement time maintained on the effector transfer test, but the movement structure (pattern of chunking sequence elements) was also preserved.…”

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

“…This result was consistent in follow-up studies using the same auditory model in different practice conditions (Han & Shea, 2008;Lai, Shea, Bruechert, & Little, 2002). Although previous research examining auditory models has yielded positive results (Han & Shea, 2008;Lai et al, 2002;Shea et al, 2001), these results have not been systematically compared to visual and integrated models as an informational source prior to the performance of a complex tapping pattern. Additionally, research that has examined integrated visual and auditory models within the context of bimanual coordination and motor learning is limited.…”

“…However, the authors were not sure whether auditory, visual, or combined auditory-visual model information would provide the participant the most salient information in learning the tapping task. Modeling studies have demonstrated that visual models tend to help build relative relationships between movement events (e.g., Buchanan et al, 2008;Buchanan & Wright, 2011;Buchanan & Dean, 2014;Lai et al, 2002;Scully & Newell, 1985) while auditory models tend to enhance absolute temporal characteristics of the movements (e.g., Shea et al, 2001). If these differential effects were true, they predicted that the combined auditory-visual model conditions would lead to optimal performance and learning.…”