Effect of verbal, visual, and auditory augmenting cues on learning a complex motor skill.

Karlin, Lawrence I.; Mortimer, Rudolf G.

doi:10.1037/h0044357

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The usual finding is that people who have practiced with concurrent continuous feedback often perform worse on no-feedback retention tests than do people who have practiced without such feedback. In other words, continuous concurrent feedback appears to enhance performance during practice when the feedback is operating, but it does not contribute to learning and may even degrade learning, as measured on retention and transfer tests (see Annett, 1959Annett, , 1969Karlin & Mortimer, 1963;Kohl & Shea, 1995;Patrick & Mutlusoy, 1982;Van der Linden et aI., 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This feedback can also be presented continuously (on-line, with essentially no delay) to indicate the level of momentary performance error (Karlin & Mortimer, 1963;Kohl & Shea, 1995;Phillips & Berkhout, 1978), deviations from a goal movement pattern (Van der Linden, Cauraugh, & Greene, 1993), the pattern of ongoing electromyographic activity (Mulder & Hulstijn, 1985), or other sources of biofeedback. Continuous concurrent augmented feedback using vision is the focus of the present article.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation

Schmidt,

Wulf

1997

Hum Factors

194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments we investigated the role of continuous concurrent visual feedback in the learning of discrete movement tasks. During practice the learner's actions either were or were not displayed on-line during the action; in both conditions the participant received kinematic feedback about errors afterward. Learning was evaluated in retention tests on the following day. We separated (a) errors in the fundamental spatial-temporal pattern controlled by the generalized motor program from (b) errors in scaling controlled by parameterization processes. During practice concurrent feedback improved parameterization but tended to decrease program stability. Based on retention tests, earlier practice with continuous feedback generally interfered with the learning of an accurate motor program and reduced the stability of time parameterization. Continuous feedback during acquisition degrades the learning of not only closed-loop processes in slower movements (as has been found in earlier studies) but also motor programs and their parameterization in more rapid tasks. Implications for feedback in training and simulation are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation

Schmidt,

Wulf

1997

Hum Factors

194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For simple tasks (defined as exact replications of a prespecified movement rather than achieving a desired effect on the environment), various forms of augmented feedback have been applied with mixed effects on performance. No advantage in skill acquisition has been found when auditory or visual cues are provided in addition to error information during visual tracking (Bilodeau & Rosenquist, 1964;Cote, Williges, & Williges, 1981;Karlin & Mortimer, 1963). Young and Schmidt (1992) demonstrated that in a task involving a swing of the forearm backward and then forward, augmented feedback on the reversal position enhanced performance (compared with KR alone), although information about the variability of the reversal position, or the time of reversal, had no effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task

Todorov

Shadmehr

Bizzi

1997

Journal of Motor Behavior

252

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One can use a number of techniques (e.g., from videotaping to computer enhancement of the environment) to augment the feedback that a subject usually receives during training on a motor task. Although some forms of augmented feedback have been shown to enhance performance on isolated isometric tasks during training, when the feedback has been removed subjects have sometimes not been able to perform as well in the "real-world" task as controls. Indeed, for realistic, nonisometric motor tasks, improved skill acquisition because of augmented feedback has not been demonstrated. In the present experiments, subjects (Experiment 1, N = 42; Experiment 2, N = 21) performed with a system that was designed for teaching a difficult multijoint movement in a table tennis environment. The system was a fairly realistic computer animation of the environment and included paddles for the teacher and subject, as well as a virtual ball. Each subject attempted to learn a difficult shot by matching the pattern of movements of the expert teacher. Augmented feedback focused the attention of the subject on a minimum set of movement details that were most relevant to the task; feedback was presented in a form that required the least perceptual processing. Effectiveness of training was determined by measuring their performance in the real task. Subjects who received the virtual environment training performed significantly better than subjects who received a comparable amount of real-task practice or coaching. Kinematic analysis indicated that practice with the expert's trajectory served as a basis for performance on the real-world task and that the movements executed after training were subject-specific modifications of the expert's trajectory. Practice with this trajectory alone was not sufficient for transfer to the real task, however: When a critical component of the virtual environment was removed, subjects showed no transfer to the real task.

show abstract

“…Whether the contradictory results of these studies derive from the use of tones vs. clicks or from population differences was not clear. Other investigators have either found slight decrements with more Feedback and Tracking Skill complex tracking tasks (Archer, Kent, & Mote, 1956) or significant increments (E. Bilodeau, 1969;Karlin & Mortimer, 1963;Kinkade, 1963;Smode, 1958;Williams & Briggs, 1962). Positive results were more common with such devices as the Pedestal Sight Manipulation Test (PSMT) and the Multidimensional Pursuit Test (MDPT).…”

Section: Clyde E Noble and Charles S Noblementioning

confidence: 92%

Pursuit Tracking Skill with Separate and Combined Visual and Auditory Feedback

Noble

1972

Journal of Motor Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) visual feedback was significantly superior to auditory feedback, (2) response guidance (narrow track) was highly effective as compared with the standard (no-track) turntable, (3) men were significantly more proficient than women in Conditions V and V+A, (4) Condition V+A was only slightly superior to Condition V, (5) auditory feedback while tracking blind was not relevant to the acquisition of pursuit skill under these conditions, (6) all differences were attributed to performance rather than to learning variables.

show abstract

Effect of verbal, visual, and auditory augmenting cues on learning a complex motor skill.

Cited by 21 publications

References 9 publications

Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation

Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation

Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task

Pursuit Tracking Skill with Separate and Combined Visual and Auditory Feedback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About