Search

One purpose of the present study was to examine whether self-confidence or anxiety would be differentially affected byfeedback from more accurate rather than less accurate trials. The second purpose was to determine whether arousal variations (activation) would predict performance. On day 1, participants performed a golf putting task under one of two conditions: one group received feedback on the most accurate trials, whereas another group received feedback on the least accurate trials. On day 2, participants completed an anxiety questionnaire and performed a retention test. Shin conductance level, as a measure of arousal, was determined. The results indicated that feedback about more accurate trials resulted in more effective learning as well as increased self-confidence. Also, activation was a predictor of performance.

This study investigated the influence of normative feedback on learning a sequential timing task. In addition to feedback about their performance per trial, two groups of participants received bogus normative feedback about a peer group's average block-to-block improvement after each block of 10 trials. Scores indicated either greater (better group) or less (worse group) than the average improvement, respectively. On the transfer test 1 day later which required producing novel absolute movement times, the better group demonstrated more effective learning than the worse group. These findings add to the mounting evidence that motivational factors affect motor skill learning.

Performing and learning motor skills has been shown to be enhanced if the performer adopts an external relative to internal focus (or no focus) of attention (Wulf 2007). The present study examined the generalizability of this effect to top-level performers (balance acrobats). Participants performed a balance task (standing on an inflated rubber dish) under each of three attentional focus conditions: (a) external focus (i.e., minimize movements of the disk), (b) internal focus (i.e., minimize movements of the feet), and (c) control conditions (no focus instructions). While there were no differences between conditions in the amount of postural sway, the frequency of movement adjustments was higher in the control condition, relative to both external and internal focus conditions. This suggests that movement automaticity and postural stability were greatest when the balance experts were free to adopt their "normal" focus of attention. The finding implies that there may be a limit to the performance-enhancing effects of external focus instructions for top-level performers. The findings are discussed in terms of action control levels and possible changes in the optimal attentional focus with the performer's level of expertise.

It has been shown that practice in dyads, as compared to individual practice, can enhance motor learning and increase the efficiency of practice (as two participants can be trained at the same time; Shea, Wulf, & Whitacre, 1999). The dyad practice protocol used by Shea et al. included both observation and dialogue between partners. Thus, it was not clear whether the learning benefits of dyad practice were due to observation, dialogue, or both. The present study examined the individual and interactive effects of observation and dialogue. The task used was speed cup stacking. Participants practiced under one of four conditions: observation/dialogue, observation/no dialogue, no observation/dialogue, and no observation/no dialogue. The two conditions that included observational practice were more effective (i.e., produced faster movement times) than the two conditions without it, both during practice and on a retention test performed under individual performance conditions. This suggests that the learning advantages of dyad practice are primarily due to the opportunity to observe another learner.

Recent studies (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2005) have shown that learners prefer to receive feedback after they believe they had a "good" rather than "poor" trial. The present study followed up on this finding and examined whether learning would benefit if individuals received feedback after good relative to poor trials. Participants practiced a task that required them to throw beanbags at a target with their nondominant arm. Vision was prevented during and after the throws. All participants received knowledge of results (KR) on three trials in each 6-trial block. While one group (KR good) received KR for the three most effective trials in each block, another (KR poor) received feedback for the three least effective trials in each block. There were no group differences in practice. However the KR good group showed learning advantages on a delayed retention test (without KR). These results demonstrated that learning is facilitated if feedback is provided after good rather than poor trials. The findings are interpreted as evidence for a motivational function of feedback.

The study follows up on the contention that self-controlled feedback schedules benefit learning because they are more tailored to the performers' needs than externally controlled feedback schedules (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002). Under this assumption, one would expect learning advantages for individuals who decide whether they want to receive feedback after a trial rather than before a trial. Participants practiced a sequential timing task, and all could decide the trials on which they received feedback. One group ("self-after") decided after every trial whether they wanted to receive feedback for that trial while another group ("self-before") made that decision before each trial The self-after group showed learning benefits on a delayed transfer test (novel absolute timing requirements) with regard to overall timing and relative-timing accuracy. Thus, self-controlled feedback was more effective when the learner could make a decision about receiving feedback after the trial. This seems to support the view that self-controlled feedback benefits learning, because learners can make a decision about feedback based on their performance on a given trial.

This paper examines whether self-controlled feedback schedules enhance learning, because they are more tailored to the performers' needs than externally controlled feedback schedules. Participants practiced a sequential timing task. One group of learners (self-control) was provided with feedback whenever they requested it, whereas another group (yoked) had no influence on the feedback schedule. The self-control group showed learning benefits on a delayed transfer test. Questionnaire results revealed that self-control learners asked for feedback primarily after good trials and yoked learners preferred to receive feedback after good trials. Analyses demonstrated that errors were lower on feedback than no-feedback trials for the self-control group but not for the yoked group. Thus, self-control participants appeared to use a strategy for requesting feedback. This might explain learning advantages of self-controlled practice.

This study examined individuad differences in the preference for and effectiveness of the type of attentional focus for motor learning. In two experiments, participants practicing a balance task (stabilometer) were asked to find out whether focusing on their feet (internal focus) or on two markets in front of their feet (external focus) was more effective. In Experiment 1, participants switched their attentional focus from trial to trial on Day 1 and used their preferred attentional focus on Day 2. In Experiment 2, participants were free to switch their attentional focus any time during 2 days of practice. Retention tests were performed on Day 3. Most participants chose an external focus. Also, they were more effective in retention than participants who preferred an internal focus.

Experiment 1 examined whether it is more advantageous to direct learners' attention to the external effects of their movements relative to other external cues. Two groups of participants hit tennis balls at a target, with one group focusing on the ball coming toward them (antecedent) and the other group focusing on the ball leaving the racket (effect). The effect group demonstrated more effective learning. Experiment 2 examined whether it is more beneficial if the movement effect is related to the movement technique, relative to other movement effects (e.g., outcome). Two groups of participants hit golf balls at a target. The attention of these groups was directed to the club or the ball trajectory, respectively. The club group showed more effective learning than the target group, suggesting that focusing on technique-related effects is more effective.

Two experiments examined generalized motor program (GMP) and parameter learning. Experiment 1 examined the effects of bandwidth knowledge of results (KR) about relative timing in constant and variable practice. The purpose was to determine if movement stability created by the bandwidth manipulation is associated with increased GMP learning and if bandwidth KR interacts with constant and variable practice. Participants were asked to depress four keys sequentially, using the same relative timing structure. Constant practice had one absolute timing requirement, whereas variable practice had three different absolute timing requirements. The results indicated that GMP learning was enhanced by constant practice (independent of the bandwidth KR condition) and by bandwidth KR, when variable practice was used. The findings suggest practice conditions (bandwidth KR, constant practice) that increase movement stability during practice enhance GMP learning. Parameter learning (during transfer), however, was enhanced by variable practice. Experiment 2 attempted to determine how constant and variable practice conditions could be combined to enhance both GMP and parameter learning. The results indicated that developing a stable GMP early in practice--by providing learners with constant practice early in practice--and refining parameter learning later in practice--by providing them with variable practice late in practice--were effective for both GMP and parameter learning. This suggests a hierarchy in the development of programmed actions with a stable GMP being a requisite for developing an effective and stable parameter rule.

This study examines the effects of a self-controlled use of physical assistance devices on learning a complex motor skill (i.e., producing slalom-type movements on a ski simulator). Physical assistance was provided by ski poles. One group of learners (self-control) was provided with the poles whenever they requested them, whereas another (yoked) group had no influence on the pole/no-pole schedule. While there were no group differences during the practice phase (Days 1 and 2), clear group differences emerged in the retention test without poles (Day 3). The self-control group produced significantly larger amplitudes than the yoked group. These results extend previous findings by showing learning advantages of the self-controlled use of physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning.

This study examined whether the learning advantages of an external focus of attention relative to an internal focus, as demonstrated by Wulf, Höss, and Prinz (1998), would also be found for a sport skill under field-like conditions. Participants (9 women, 13 men; age range: 21-29 years) without experience in golf were required to practice pitch shots. The practice phase consisted of 80 practice trials. One group was instructed to focus on the arm swing (internal focus), whereas another group was instructed to focus on the club swing (external focus). One day after practice, a retention test of 30 trials without instructions was performed. The external-focus condition was more effective for performance during both practice and retention.