Too Much of a Good Thing: Random Practice Scheduling and Self-Control of Feedback Lead to Unique but Not Additive Learning Benefits

Abstract

We examined the impact of self-controlled knowledge of results on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of anticipation timing skill as a function of random and blocked practice schedules. Forty-eight undergraduate students were divided into experimental groups that practiced under varying combinations of random or blocked as well as self-controlled or yoked practice conditions. Anticipation timing performance (5, 13, and 21 mph) was recorded during acquisition and during a short term no-feedback retention test. A transfer test, administered 24 h after the retention test, consisted of two novel anticipation timing speeds (9, 17 mph). Absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) of timing served as the dependent measures. All participants improved their accuracy and consistency across acquisition blocks; however, those who practiced under blocked rather than random conditions had greater accuracy (lower AE) regardless of feedback delivery. During retention and transfer, those who practiced under random conditions showed greater consistency (lower VE) compared to their blocked counterparts. Finally, participants who controlled their feedback schedule were more accurate (lower AE) and less variable (lower VE) during transfer compared to yoked participants, regardless of practice scheduling. Our findings indicate that practicing under a random schedule improves retention and transfer consistency, while self-control of feedback is advantageous to both the accuracy and consistency with which anticipation timing skill transfers to novel task demands. The combination of these learning manipulations, however, does not improve skill retention or transfer above and beyond their orthogonal effects.

Rowing Simulator Modulates Water Density to Foster Motor Learning

“…In the second day trainings, both groups showed a plateau effect, suggesting that the provided information could not support further skill development. This result is interesting because we would have expected from VD group a further progress on the precision based on the previously reported effectiveness of practice variability (Donakowski, 2005) and randomized training (Ali et al, 2012) on the temporal variability. However, these studies investigated artificial laboratory tasks to be learned; thus, conclusions from simple tasks may not extend to the real-life complex tasks (Wulf and Shea, 2002).…”

Brain Oscillations in Sport: Toward EEG Biomarkers of Performance

“…For top performance accomplishment in sports, the brain dynamics needs to be taken into account because it determines both motor control and crucial psychological factors, such as intrinsic motivation (Pedersen, 2002 ), selective attention (Arjona et al, 2014 ; Abdollahipour et al, 2015 ), goal setting (West and Thorn, 2001 ), working memory (Dipoppa and Gutkin, 2013 ), decision making (Renfree et al, 2014 ), positive self-concept (Badami et al, 2012 ), and self-control (Ali et al, 2012 ; Chiviacowsky et al, 2012 ).…”

Influence of Self-Controlled Feedback on Learning a Serial Motor Skill

“…Recently, however, many researchers have found that the eff ectiveness of self-controlled feedback varies in accordance with task diffi culty (e.g., simple and complex), subject and task characteristics (e.g., age, open and closed skills), practice conditions (blocked vs. random), forms of knowledge contained in feedback (knowledge of result, knowledge of performance), motivation, ability to process information, and when combined with other learning manipulations ( Yook, Yoon, & Lee, 2005 ;Aiken, et al ., 2012 ;Ali, Fawver, Kim, Fairbrother, & Janelle, 2012 ;Carter, Carlsen, & Ste-Marie, 2014 ). For example, Bund and Wiemeyer (2004 ) investigated whether self-controlled feedback would enhance a complex motor skill learning.…”