On the Problem of Two-Dimensional Error Scores: Measures and Analyses of Accuracy, Bias, and Consistency

Hancock, Gregory R.; Butler, Michael S.; Fischman, Mark G.

doi:10.1080/00222895.1995.9941714

Cited by 199 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Those measures reflect distance from the target and variability in the distance from the target over trials (Hancock, Butler, & Fischman, 1995). We calculated RE as the square root of the sum of the squared deviations in the x-and y-axes, whereas we calculated RVE as the square root of the total sample variance (i.e., the sum of the two variances) in the x-and y-axes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for an Explanation of the Guidance Effect in Motor Skill Learning

Anderson

Magill

Sekiya

et al. 2005

Journal of Motor Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The authors investigated whether the knowledge of results (KR) schedule influences the extent to which intrinsic feedback is noticed and used. Fifty-six participants received KR that was either delayed over 2 trials (Delay-2) or provided directly after each trial (Delay-0) during 160 trials of an unfamiliar aiming task. No-KR retention tests were given after 80 trials and 1 min and 24 hr after the end of acquisition. After retention, all participants were questioned about their use of intrinsic feedback during practice and whether those sources changed as a function of practice. The Delay-2 group performed significantly less accurately on the 1st and last blocks of acquisition trials but showed a significantly smaller performance decline from acquisition to retention. Moreover, the Delay-2 group noticed and used a greater variety of intrinsic feedback sources and its members were more likely to report that their usage changed with practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for an Explanation of the Guidance Effect in Motor Skill Learning

Anderson

Magill

Sekiya

et al. 2005

Journal of Motor Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scoring system used in our previous experiments using two-dimensional aiming tasks (Maddox et al, 1999;Wulf et al, 1999;Wulf et al, 2000) did not capture these performance characteristics (see Reeve, Fischman, Christina, & Cauraugh, 1994, for a discussion of this problem). The utilization of measures suggested by Hancock, Butler, and Fischman (1995) could provide further insights into which aspects of performance are influenced by the performer's attentional focus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review

Wulf

Prinz²

2001

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

568

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies investigating the influence of the learner' s focus of attention, induced by instructions or feedback, on motor skill learning are reviewed. In general, directing performers' attention to the effects of their movements (external focus of attention) appears to be more beneficial than directing their attention to their own movements (internal focus of attention). Preliminary evidence is presented indicating that an internal attentional focus constrains the motor system by interfering with natural control processes, whereas an external focus seems to allow automatic control processes to regulate the movements. Support for the view that actions are controlled by their anticipated effects comes from research demonstrating functional variability in motor control, as well as the benefits of purposeful activity in occupational therapy. We explain these results in terms of the ideomotor principle of human actions (James, 1890) and its more modern derivatives (

show abstract

“…O erro variável informa o grau de variabilidade ou consistência do desempenho e é derivado a partir de cada valor individual de erro constante, subtraído da média desse erro e elevado ao quadrado. A partir disso, calculou-se a média desses valores e se extraiu a raiz quadrada (Hancock, Butler, & Fischman, 1995;Teixeira, 2006).…”

Section: Análise Estatísticaunclassified

Instruções de foco de atenção para a automatização da ação na aprendizagem de uma habilidade manipulativa

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ARTIGO ORIGINAL | ORIGINAL ARTICLE RESUMOO objetivo deste estudo foi testar a hipótese da ação restrita sobre o efeito do foco de atenção na automatização da ação. Participaram 30 sujeitos, formando os grupos de foco de atenção interno (FI, n=10), foco de atenção externo (FE, n=10) e grupo controle (GC, n=10). A tarefa primária consistiu em lançar um disco de plástico de maneira que ele deslizasse sobre a mesa com a meta de encostar ou ficar o mais próximo possível do alvo, realizada concomitante à tarefa probatória de tempo de reação. Conduziu-se um pré-teste, uma fase de aquisição (9 blocos de 10 tentativas) com descanso de 2 minutos entre os blocos e, em seguida, um pós-teste. Após 48 horas, aplicou-se um teste de retenção e de transferência. A Anova (3 grupos x 4 momentos) com medidas repetidas no último fator não indicou diferença significativa entre os grupos com FI e FE em relação ao desempenho na tarefa, mas somente entre os momentos de avaliação (p<.05). Nesse estudo, a hipótese da ação restrita não foi confirmada. Na prática, o uso de instruções para o direcionamento do foco de atenção deve ser atentamente utilizado de acordo com o estágio de aprendizagem do sujeito e o objetivo a ser atingido.Palavras-chave: aprendizagem motora, automatização, instrução, foco de atenção, habilidade manipulativa. ABSTRACTThe purpose was to test the constrained-action hypothesis on the effect of the focus of attention in the automation of the action. Thirty subjects participated (± 24.9 years old), divided into three groups: internal focus of attention (FI, n = 10), external focus of attention (FE, n = 10) and a control group (GC, n = 10). The task was to launch a plastic disc making it slide on the table in order to touch the target or to be as close as possible to it, and parallel to this the participants performed a reaction time task. The participants performed a pretest, followed by an acquisition phase (9 blocks of 10 trials), with a two minutes rest between blocks, a post-test, and after 48 hours, a retention and transfer test. The repeated measures ANOVA (3x4) indicated significant difference only between moments (p <.05). It can be concluded that these data do not support the beneficial effect of the external focus of attention for action automation. In practice, the use of instructions to direct the focus of attention should be carefully used according to the learning stage of the subject and the objective to be attained.

show abstract

On the Problem of Two-Dimensional Error Scores: Measures and Analyses of Accuracy, Bias, and Consistency

Cited by 199 publications

References 2 publications

Support for an Explanation of the Guidance Effect in Motor Skill Learning

Support for an Explanation of the Guidance Effect in Motor Skill Learning

Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review

Instruções de foco de atenção para a automatização da ação na aprendizagem de uma habilidade manipulativa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About