Effects of delay of knowledge of results and subject response bias on extinction of a simple motor skill.

Dyal, James A.

doi:10.1037/h0022969

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained in this study by Dyal, Wilson, and Berry support the previous findings of Dyal (1964). In a later study, Dyal (1966) showed that delayed KR interfered with the acquisition of a line drawing skill and that the type of error made during extinction (overshooting or undershooting the 3-inch line) was dependent on the training conditions (immediate versus delayed) and the original response bias of the subject. Lavery (1964) compared the effect of delayed KR on the ability of subjects to throw magnetized pellets at a target of concentric circles.…”

Section: Knowledge Of Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Chapter VI: Motor Skill Learning

Govatos¹

1967

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Knowledge Of Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Chapter VI: Motor Skill Learning

Govatos¹

1967

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This marginally greater delay between movement completion and KR delivery could be argued to have allowed the engagement of additional error estimation processes to benefit learning that were not available in the fixed 2000 ms interval. However, we specifically adopted a 2000 ms KR delay interval based on past research revealing that error estimation processes are engaged immediately following a movement ( McGuigan, 1959 ; McGuigan et al, 1960 ; Dyal et al, 1965 ; Dyal, 1966 ; Newell, 1976 ; see Salmoni et al, 1984 ; Swinnen, 1988 ; Swinnen et al, 1990 for in-depth discussions). Therefore, any error estimation processes would be expected to have occurred very quickly following movement completion and well within the fixed 2000 ms KR delay interval used for all groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learnerâ€™s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005)

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The learning advantages of self-controlled feedback schedules compared to yoked schedules have been attributed to motivational influences and/or information processing activities with many researchers adopting the motivational perspective in recent years. Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) found that feedback decisions made before (Self-Before) or after a trial (Self-After) resulted in similar retention performance, but superior transfer performance resulted when the decision to receive feedback occurred after a trial. They suggested that the superior skill transfer of the Self-After group likely emerged from information processing activities such as error estimation. However, the lack of yoked groups and a measure of error estimation in their experimental design prevents conclusions being made regarding the underlying mechanisms of why self-controlled feedback schedules optimize learning. Here, we revisited Chiviacowsky and Wulf’s (2005) design to investigate the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules. We replicated their Self-Before and Self-After groups, but added a Self-Both group that was able to request feedback before a trial, but could then change or stay with their original choice after the trial. Importantly, yoked groups were included for the three self-controlled groups to address the previously stated methodological limitation and error estimations were included to examine whether self-controlling feedback facilitates a more accurate error detection and correction mechanism. The Self-After and Self-Before groups demonstrated similar accuracy in physical performance and error estimation scores in retention and transfer, and both groups were significantly more accurate than the Self-Before group and their respective Yoked groups (p’s < 0.05). Further, the Self-Before group was not significantly different from their yoked counterparts (p’s > 0.05). We suggest these findings further indicate that informational factors associated with the processing of feedback for the development of one’s error detection and correction mechanism, rather than motivational processes are more critical for why self-controlled feedback schedules optimize motor learning.

show abstract

“…In the few that did find effects, the differences in performance could often be attributed to concomitant variations in either the post-KR or the intertrial interval, confounded with the KR delay interval. In the limited number of studies that made use of some type of no-KR test, the majority did not demonstrate reliable effects of varying the delay of knowledge of results (Dyal, 1966; Dyal, Wilson, & Berry, 1965; Koch & Dorfman, 1979; McGuigan, 1959; McGuigan, Crockett, & Bolton, 1960; Schmidt, Christenson, & Rogers, 1975; Schmidt & Shea, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%