Abstract
Performers adopt strategies to use visual information if they know that it will be available whereas uncertainty about its availability leads performers to prepare for the worst-case scenario. Since the impact of prior knowledge has generally been examined as performance-based changes across a series of trials, this study investigates the impact of prior knowledge on learning. Participants practiced target-directed aiming movements either with cues about the random availability of vision, no cues regarding vision or in blocks of stable visual information availability. Participants who received prior knowledge were more efficient in preparing their acquisition movements when vision was available. In retention and transfer, all participants were able to take advantage of the visual information available in order to optimize performance outcome. Thus, adult performers appear able to change their strategic behavior quickly to accommodate new sensory and prior knowledge conditions.
Highlights
Over 40 years ago, Keele and Posner (1968) published an influential paper in which they estimated it took a minimum of 190 - 260 ms to process and use visual feedback for the regulation of discrete goal-directed aiming
The purpose of this study was to determine if prior knowledge about the availability of visual information for limb control impacts the manner in which adult performers learn to optimize rapid goal-directed aiming movements
Participants in all 3 groups decreased both their vision and no vision movement times over the 5 acquisition blocks, this improvement was achieved in slightly different ways
Summary
Over 40 years ago, Keele and Posner (1968) published an influential paper in which they estimated it took a minimum of 190 - 260 ms to process and use visual feedback for the regulation of discrete goal-directed aiming. When there is uncertainty about the availability of feedback (e.g., a random vision-no vision schedule), the performer prepares for the worst-case, or no vision, scenario (Elliott, Hansen, Mendoza, & Tremblay, 2004; Hansen, Glazebrook, Anson, Weeks, & Elliott, 2006; Khan, Elliott, Coull, Chua, & Lyons, 2002) This interpretation of outcome findings is consistent with the spatial-temporal characteristics of aiming movements performed with and without vision. Hansen et al (2006) suggested that this strategy reflects the performer’s attempt to get the limb to the target area quickly in order to take full advantage of visual feedback when the limb is in the target area (see Elliott, Chua, Pollock, & Lyons, 1995) This aiming strategy results in greater trial-to-trial spatial variability early in the movement, and a large decrease in variability between peak deceleration and movement termination, as the limb benefits from late visual information about its trajectory relative to the position of the target (Khan et al, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
