Self-controlled Knowledge Of Results Research Articles

Self-Controlled Feedback in Motor Learning: The Effects Depend on the Frequency of Request

The benefits of allowing learners to control when to receive knowledge of results (KR) compared to a yoked group has been recently challenged and postulated to be mild at best. A potential explanation for such dissident findings is that individuals differentially utilize the autonomy provided by the self-controlled condition, which, in its turn, affects the outcomes. Therefore, the present study investigated the effects of self-controlled KR on motor learning focusing on the frequency of KR requests when performing an anticipatory timing task. Self-controlled groups were created based on participants’ KR frequency of request (High, Medium, and Low referring to fifth, third, and first quintile) and, then, Yoked groups were created self-control condition pairing the KR request of the Self-controlled groups. We also measured self-efficacy and processing time as means to verify potential correlates. The results supported the expected interaction. While no difference between self-controlled and yoked groups were found for low frequencies of KR, a moderate amount of KR request was related to better results for the self-controlled group. Nonetheless, the opposite trend was observed for high frequencies of KR; the yoked group was superior to the self-controlled group. The results of this study allow us to conclude that the choices made, and not just the possibility of choosing, seem to define the benefits of KR self-control in motor learning.

Expectation of Teaching and Self-Controlled KR in Motor Skills Acquisition: Are There Additive Effects?

ABSTRACT Purpose: Recent evidence suggests learning a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it enhances motor learning. The mechanisms underlying this effect seem to be similar to those of another motor learning condition, the self-control of knowledge of results (KR). Considering the similarities between the mechanisms that underlie these conditions, we aimed to investigate the learning effects obtained through expected teaching and self-controlled conditions, and whether these effects would be additive. Methods: Participants practiced a dart-throwing task under one of the following conditions: a) expecting to teach the skill; b) controlling the KR request; c) combining the two previous conditions; and d) receiving KR in a yoked condition with self-controlled participants. In acquisition phase, motivational aspects, strategies for requesting KR and aspects related to the expectation of teaching were assessed according to each condition. Results: Participants with control over KR and/or with the expectation of teaching the skill showed superior learning of the task compared to the control condition. However, the combination of the experimental conditions did not result in additive learning benefits. Increased perceived competence was found in expecting to teach, self-controlled and combined conditions, compared to the yoked group. Additionally, expecting to teach also affected the way and the frequency learners requested KR. Conclusions: Our findings provide important insights toward understanding the effects of expecting to teach, in addition to demonstrating that expecting to teach affects self-controlled KR scheduling and its use during motor skill acquisition.

Optimizing Feedback Frequency in Motor Learning: Self-Controlled and Moderate Frequency KR Enhance Skill Acquisition.

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effects of self-controlled knowledge of results (SCKR) to other KR schedules of varying relative frequency (25%, 50%, and 100% of acquisition trials) on motor skill learning. Participants received basic instructions on the soccer overhead throw and then performed 50 acquisition trials, during which KR was provided according to the assigned schedule, followed by a retention test, during which no KR was provided. Retention scores were highest for the SCKR and 50% KR frequency groups who shared comparable absolute KR frequency and distribution relative to successful versus unsuccessful trials. These results indicated that both self-control and moderate frequency feedback enhanced learning, supporting an inverted U-shaped effect of feedback frequency on skill acquisition.

Increased cognitive load during acquisition of a continuous task eliminates the learning effects of self-controlled knowledge of results

ABSTRACTPrevious research has demonstrated that providing learners with self-control over some aspect of practice enhances motor learning (for a review see Wulf, 2007). One explanation for the self-control effect is that learners engage in deeper information processing when they are allowed to make choices during practice. Recent research has supported this line of thinking by showing that the self-control effect was eliminated for learners who engaged in a cognitive load task during the interval following completion of discrete task trials (Carter & Ste-Marie, 2017). The current study tested the effects of imposing a cognitive load task during the completion of continuous task trials. Participants (N = 48) were divided into self-control (SC), self-control with load (SCL), and two corresponding yoked (YK, YKL) groups. Participants learned a continuous tracing task and then performed 24-hour retention and transfer tests. Retention and transfer test movement times were significantly faster for SC compared to YK participants within the No Load condition but did not differ between these participants within the Load condition. Errors were similar among all groups in retention and transfer. These results provide support for the importance of information processing in regards to the self-controlled learning benefit.

Self-Controlled Feedback and Learner Impulsivity in Sequential Motor Learning.

Many studies have attributed self-controlled feedback benefits associated with motor learning to learners' greater information processing during practice. However, individual learner characteristics like their impulsivity can also influence how people engage cognitively during learning. We investigated possible dissociations between the types of interaction in self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) and learner impulsivity levels in learning a sequential motor task. Ninety volunteers responded to the self-restraint section of the Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale, and those 60 participants with the highest ( n = 30) and lowest ( n = 30) impulsivity scores practiced a motor task involving sequential pressing of four keys in predetermined absolute and relative times. We further divided participants into four experimental groups by assigning the high- and low-impulsivity groups to two forms of KR-self-controlled absolute and yoked. Study results showed no interaction effect between impulsivity and self-controlled KR, and, contrary to expectation, self-controlled KR did not benefit learning, independently of impulsivity. However, low-impulsivity participants performed better than high-impulsivity participants on the absolute dimension of the transfer task, while high-impulsivity learners were better at the relative dimension. Cognitive characteristics of automatic and reflexive processing were expressed by the strategies used to direct attention to relative and absolute task dimensions, respectively. Low-impulsivity learners switched their attention to both dimensions at the end of practice, while high-impulsivity learners did not switch their attention or directed it only to the relative dimension at the end of the practice. These results suggest that the cognitive styles of high- and low-impulsive learners differentially favor learning distinct dimensions of a motor task, regardless of self-controlled KR.

External Control of Knowledge of Results: Learner Involvement Enhances Motor Skill Transfer.

Providing the learner control over aspects of practice has improved the process of motor skill acquisition, and self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) schedules have shown specific advantages over externally controlled ones. A possible explanation is that self-controlled KR schedules lead learners to more active task involvement, permitting deeper information processing. This study tested this explanatory hypothesis. Thirty undergraduate volunteers of both sexes, aged 18 to 35, all novices in the task, practiced transporting a tennis ball in a specified sequence within a time goal. We compared a high-involvement group (involvement yoked, IY), notified in advance about upcoming KR trials, to self-controlled KR (SC) and yoked KR (YK) groups. The experiment consisted of three phases: acquisition, retention, and transfer. We found both IY and SC groups to be superior to YK for transfer of learning. Postexperiment participant questionnaires confirmed a preference for receiving KR after learner-perceived good trials, even though performance on those trials did not differ from performance on trials without KR. Equivalent IY and SC performances provide support for the benefits of task involvement and deeper information processing when KR is self-controlled in motor skill acquisition.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules.

A distinct learning advantage has been shown when participants control their knowledge of results (KR) scheduling during practice compared to when the same KR schedule is imposed on the learner without choice (i.e., yoked schedules). Although the learning advantages of self-controlled KR schedules are well-documented, the brain regions contributing to these advantages remain unknown. Identifying key brain regions would not only advance our theoretical understanding of the mechanisms underlying self-controlled learning advantages, but would also highlight regions that could be targeted in more applied settings to boost the already beneficial effects of self-controlled KR schedules. Here, we investigated whether applying anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the primary motor cortex (M1) would enhance the typically found benefits of learning a novel motor skill with a self-controlled KR schedule. Participants practiced a spatiotemporal task in one of four groups using a factorial combination of KR schedule (self-controlled vs. yoked) and tDCS (anodal vs. sham). Testing occurred on two consecutive days with spatial and temporal accuracy measured on both days and learning was assessed using 24-h retention and transfer tests without KR. All groups improved their performance in practice and a significant effect for practicing with a self-controlled KR schedule compared to a yoked schedule was found for temporal accuracy in transfer, but a similar advantage was not evident in retention. There were no significant differences as a function of KR schedule or tDCS for spatial accuracy in retention or transfer. The lack of a significant tDCS effect suggests that M1 may not strongly contribute to self-controlled KR learning advantages; however, caution is advised with this interpretation as typical self-controlled learning benefits were not strongly replicated in the present experiment.

Motor Skill Retention Is Modulated by Strategy Choice During Self-Controlled Knowledge of Results Schedules

Investigations into the strategies that are used by participants when they control their knowledge of results (KR) schedule during practice have predominantly relied on multiple-choice questionnaires. More recently, open-ended questions have been used to allow participants to produce their own descriptions rather than selecting a strategy from a predetermined list. This approach has in fact generated new information about the cognitive strategies used by learners to request KR during practice (e.g., Laughlin et al., 2015). Consequently, we examined strategy use in self-controlled KR learning situations using open-ended questions at two different time points during practice. An inductive thematic content analysis revealed five themes that represented participants’ unique strategies for requesting KR. This analysis identified two dominant KR strategies: “establish a baseline understanding” in the first half of practice and “confirm a perceived good trial” in the second half of practice. Both strategies were associated with superior retention compared with a yoked group, a group that was unable to engage in KR request strategies because KR was imposed rather than chosen. Our results indicate that the learning advantages of self-controlled KR schedules over yoked schedules may not only depend on what strategy is used, but also when it is used.

An interpolated activity during the knowledge-of-results delay interval eliminates the learning advantages of self-controlled feedback schedules

The learning advantages of self-controlled knowledge-of-results (KR) schedules compared to yoked schedules have been linked to the optimization of the informational value of the KR received for the enhancement of one's error-detection capabilities. This suggests that information-processing activities that occur after motor execution, but prior to receiving KR (i.e., the KR-delay interval) may underlie self-controlled KR learning advantages. The present experiment investigated whether self-controlled KR learning benefits would be eliminated if an interpolated activity was performed during the KR-delay interval. Participants practiced a waveform matching task that required two rapid elbow extension-flexion reversals in one of four groups using a factorial combination of choice (self-controlled, yoked) and KR-delay interval (empty, interpolated). The waveform had specific spatial and temporal constraints, and an overall movement time goal. The results indicated that the self-controlled+empty group had superior retention and transfer scores compared to all other groups. Moreover, the self-controlled+interpolated and yoked + interpolated groups did not differ significantly in retention and transfer; thus, the interpolated activity eliminated the typically found learning benefits of self-controlled KR. No significant differences were found between the two yoked groups. We suggest the interpolated activity interfered with information-processing activities specific to self-controlled KR conditions that occur during the KR-delay interval and that these activities are vital for reaping the associated learning benefits. These findings add to the growing evidence that challenge the motivational account of self-controlled KR learning advantages and instead highlights informational factors associated with the KR-delay interval as an important variable for motor learning under self-controlled KR schedules.

Examining the Preferred Self-Controlled KR Schedules of Learners and Peers During Motor Skill Learning

ABSTRACTIn many practical situations, learners are provided with feedback in the form of knowledge of results (KR) by a peer. However, when peers provide KR is currently unknown. When given the opportunity to request KR in a self-controlled manner, some participants have reported a preference for requesting KR after good performances. Alternatively, peers may provide KR in a different fashion. Subsequently, a discrepancy between the learner's desire to receive KR and when a peer provides KR may arise. In our study, peer- and self-controlled KR schedules were compared. Participants were peers who controlled KR (PC; 8), learners with peers (P-L; 8), or learners with self-control (SC; 8). Participants in the two learning groups (P-L and SC groups) completed a serial-timing task with a goal time of 2500 ms. Absolute error data on KR and no-KR trials along with self-reports indicate that participants with self-control preferred KR after good trials and peers preferred to provide KR after both good and bad trials equally. Results from the delayed retention test indicated that peer-controlled learners were more consistent (i.e., in terms of variable error) than the self-control group.

Self-controlled knowledge of results: Age-related differences in motor learning, strategies, and error detection

Research has demonstrated that a self-controlled KR schedule is advantageous for motor learning; however, the usefulness of a self-controlled KR context in older adults remains unknown. To address this gap in knowledge, we examined whether (1) the learning benefits of a self-controlled KR schedule are modulated by the age of the learner; (2) practicing in a self-controlled KR context concurrently strengthens the learner’s error detection mechanism, and (3) the KR strategy during acquisition changes as a function of practice trials completed and age. As a function of age, participants were quasirandomly assigned to either the self-control or yoked group resulting in four experimental groups (Self-Young, Yoked-Young, Self-Old, and Yoked-Old). The results revealed the Self-Young group: (1) demonstrated superior retention performance than all other groups (p<.05); (2) was more accurate in estimating motor performance than all other groups during retention (p<.05), and (3) self-reported a switch in their strategy for requesting KR during acquisition based on the number of practice trials completed. Collectively, our findings suggest that older adults do not demonstrate the same learning benefits of a self-controlled KR context as younger adults which may be attributed to differences in KR strategies.

Learning Benefits of Self-Controlled Knowledge of Results in 10-Year-Old Children

Learning Benefits of Self-Controlled Knowledge of Results in 10-Year-Old Children

Effect of self-controlled knowledge of results in motor skill learning of elderly adults

The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) in motor skill learning of elderly adults. Twenty subjects (65.45 + 5.34 years-old), inexperienced in the required task, were randomly distributed in two experimental groups: 1) Self-controlled Group, who received KR whenever requested; 2) Yoked Group, who received KR on the same trials of the Self-controlled Group. The task consisted of moving three tennis balls into six roles, positioned in a wood platform, in a previously determined sequence and target time. During the acquisition phase, the subjects performed 45 trials with a target time of 4500 ms. The immediate transfer tests, conducted ten minutes after the acquisition phase, consisted of 45 trials with a target time of 5000 ms. After forty eight hours, the same procedure was conducted for the latest transfer test. The results showed marginal differences, suggesting a higher performance of self-controlled group. It was concluded that selfcontrolled KR is helpful to promote motor learning in elderly adults.