Progressive reduction versus fixed level of support during training: When less is less

Abstract

Previous empirical and theoretical work suggests that effective skill acquisition requires movements to be generated actively and that learning new skills supports the acquisition of prospective control. However, there are many ways in which practice can be structured, that may affect the acquisition and use of prospective control after training. Here, we tested whether the progressive modulation and reduction of support during training was required to yield good performance after training without support. The task was to use a stylus to push a bead over a complex 3D wire path. The support “magnetically” attracted and held the stylus onto the wire. Three groups of adult participants each experienced one of three training regimes: gradual reduction of magnetic attraction, only a medium level of attraction, or low magnetic attraction. The results showed that use of a single (medium) level of support was significantly less effective in yielding good performance with low support after training. Training with low support yielded post-training performance that was equally good as that yielded by training with progressive reduction of support; however, performance during training was significantly poorer in the former. Thus, less support during training yields effective learning but more difficult training sessions. The results are discussed in the context of application to training with special populations.

Training compliance control yields improved drawing in 5–11year old children with motor difficulties

“…However, there are limits to this notion. Snapp-Childs, Wang and Bingham (2016) demonstrated that generating a high number of errors during training led to good learning but not better learning that when generating a moderate number of errors – and contrary to Williams and Carnahan's assertions, generating more errors did not appear to “speed up” learning. In fact, even when training young, healthy adults (as in Snapp-Childs et al, 2015), more errors appeared to be more of a nuisance during training rather than a learning booster.…”

“…This was an important finding because the training task was relatively difficult for the children (with motor difficulties) to perform and children typically become averse to interventions if they are too challenging. Our approach, however, was designed to keep enjoyment and self-efficacy high throughout the intervention by keeping levels of performance relative high; thus, avoiding the aversion in the first place (Snapp-Childs et al, 2016). …”