The implicit benefit of learning without errors

Abstract

Two studies examined whether the number of errors made in learning a motor skill, golf putting, differentially influences the adoption of a selective (explicit) or unselective (implicit) learning mode. Errorful learners were expected to adopt an explicit, hypothesis-testing strategy to correct errors during learning, thereby accruing a pool of verbalizable rules and exhibiting performance breakdown under dual-task conditions, characteristic of a selective mode of learning. Reducing errors during learning was predicted to minimize the involvement of explicit hypothesis testing leading to the adoption of an unselective mode of learning, distinguished by few verbalizable rules and robust performance under secondary task loading. Both studies supported these predictions. The golf putting performance of errorless learners in both studies was unaffected by the imposition of a secondary task load, whereas the performance of errorful learners deteriorated. Reducing errors during learning limited the number of error-correcting hypotheses tested by the learner, thereby reducing the contribution of explicit processing to skill acquisition. It was concluded that the reduction of errors during learning encourages the use of implicit, unselective learning processes, which confer insusceptibility to performance breakdown under distraction.

The role of error processing in the contextual interference effect during the training of perceptual-cognitive skills.

“…However, alternative explanations could provide a outcome and the desired goal (Rabbitt, 1966(Rabbitt, , 1967. In addition, they generate rules, 130 hypotheses and knowledge about future task requirements so as to improve subsequent 131 performance (Maxwell, Masters, Kerr, & Weedon, 2001). Therefore, an error trial leads to 132 greater cognitive effort due to the additional processing that takes place when compared to an 133 errorless trial (Lam et al, 2010).…”

Refining the Continuous Tracking Paradigm to Investigate Implicit Motor Learning

“…Low T3-Fz coherence is thought to reflect less dependence on explicit processes for motor performance (see Deeny, Hillman, Janelle, & Hatfield, 2003;Zhu, Poolton, Wilson, Maxwell, & Masters, 2011b). As such, expert marksmen displayed lower EEG T3-Fz coherence than less skilled shooters (Deeny et al, 2003) and novice golfers who used an implicit motor learning paradigm (Masters, 1992;Maxwell, Masters, Kerr, & Weedon, 2001) displayed lower EEG T3-Fz coherence than more explicit learners (Zhu et al, 2011b). In a recent study that modified the continuous 24 tracking task paradigm for laparoscopic surgical skills training, T3-Fz alpha power coherence was greater when participants were made aware of the repeated waveform pattern compared to when participants were not, suggesting that T3-Fz alpha power coherence reflects the use of explicit knowledge of characteristics of the pattern to support tracking performance (Zhu et al, 2011a).…”

Evidence for biomechanics and motor learning research improving golf performance

“…The errorless groups in both studies had significantly greater putting accuracy in the retention and transfer tests than the errorfull and random groups. Maxwell et al (2001) 24 also reported that when the retention tests were performed with a secondary task, there were further significant reductions in putting performance for the errorfull and random groups, but no significant changes for the errorless group. The secondary task used was tone counting and required the golfers to count the number of high but not low pitch sounds while putting.…”

“…Six motor learning studies (see Table 2) compared the learning effects of altering the structure of the golf practice session via massed versus distributed practice (Dail & Christina, 2004), block versus random practice (Goodwin & Meeuwsen, 1996;Guadagnoli, Holcomb, & Weber, 1999;Porter & Magill, 2010) as well as errorless versus errorfull practice (Lam, Maxwell, & Masters, 2010;Maxwell, Masters, Kerr, & Weedon, 2001). …”

“…Two studies (Lam, et al, 2010;Maxwell, et al, 2001) examined the effect of errorless and errorfull practice on golf putting learning with Maxwell et al (2001) also including a random group. Both studies involved novice golfers performing putts over eight distances and on the same day performing a retention and/or transfer test.…”