Is More Always Better? Optimal Amounts of Feedback in Learning to Calibrate Sensory Awareness

Abstract

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.

Reduced Feedback: Motor Learning Strategy in Persons with Alzheimer's Disease

“…This is consistent with previous research, mainly using populations without any neurological condition (Badets & Blandin, 2004;Eslinger & Damasio, 1986;Jarus, 1995;Rice, 2003;Weeks, & Kordus, 1998;Winstein & Schmidt, 1990;Wulf, Schmidt, & Deubel, 1993;Young & Schmidt, 1992). Interestingly, in the current study, the participant group without AD did not demonstrate any difference in retention or transfer performance regardless of which KR condition they were assigned.…”

“…As a general consensus, participants performed better with 100% KR, but did not recall the skill as well as participants who received 50% KR (Eslinger & Damasio, 1986;Jarus, 1995;Rice, 2003;Winstein & Schmidt, 1990;Wulf, Schmidt, & Deubel, 1993;Young & Schmidt, 1992) or 33% KR (Badets & Blandin, 2004;Weeks & Kordus, 1998). With few exceptions (e.g., Jarus, 1995;Rice, 2003), the abovementioned studies recruited young healthy adults; hence, the construct that reduced frequency of KR (e.g., 50% or 33%) yields enhanced retention should not be generalized to older populations, much less to persons with AD. In addition, these studies with young healthy participants generally involved simple contrived tasks that employed movements requiring little problem solving.…”