Error Feedback Frequency Affects Automaticity But Not Accuracy and Consistency After Extensive Motor Skill Practice

Abstract

Earlier studies addressed the effects of feedback frequency on movement accuracy and consistency. The authors additionally addressed the effects on motor automatization. High error feedback frequencies may induce attentional control processes and impede motor automatization. In a pre-post design, 42 participants were assigned to 2 groups with different feedback frequencies and practiced an arm movement sequence with 760 trials in 5 sessions. The 100% group practiced with feedback on 3 movement reversals of the sequence after each trial. The 14% group practiced with 14% frequency according to a fading schedule. Only the 14% group showed a decrease in dual-task costs indicating an increase in automaticity. Group differences in movement accuracy and consistency were not evident.

Valence‐dependent brain potentials of processing augmented feedback in learning a complex arm movement sequence

“…The current findings with respect to the FRN contribute to recent behavioral data and respective theoretical explanations on the effects of feedback valence in motor learning research (Agethen & Krause, ; Krause et al, ). It was assumed that the hindering effect of negative feedback on motor automatization might result from a modulation of dopaminergic midbrain neurons.…”

“…If the LFCP indeed reflects more attentional driven supervised learning processes after negative feedback, it should not only be related to behavioral adjustments (positive correlation) but also to dual‐task cost reductions (negatively correlated), as more attentional driven modifications of the representation should hinder automatization processes. Knowledge about these coherences might support current explanations for feedback valence‐dependent automatization (e.g., EPAC‐hypotheses; Krause et al, ) and help to predict motor automatization on an individual level in order to adapt feedback procedures, respectively.…”

“…The FRN is assumed to have its source in the ACC region (Miltner et al, ) and has been suggested to reflect reward prediction error processing (Hauser et al, ; Pfabigan et al, ). From this perspective, the FRN in the current data might be interpreted as a neural correlate of the error (feedback) provoked attentional control that hinders motor automatization in conditions with a high frequency of feedback with negative valence (Krause et al, ).…”

“…The role of augmented feedback is to increase informational value regarding movement outcome, thereby rewarding behavior or inducing successful corrective behavior. According to the error‐provoked attentional control hypothesis (EPAC hypothesis; Krause, Agethen, & Zobe, ) the valence of feedback is essential with respect to its effect. Feedback with negative valence is assumed to provoke attentional control processes for short‐term behavioral adaptations but limit long‐term motor learning and automaticity (Agethen & Krause, ; Krause et al, ).…”

“…Neither does specific evidence exist for the role of FRN and P300 in motor learning with regard to their development over practice and their prediction function regarding behavioral adjustments. Knowledge about these effects is valuable to shed light on the role of feedback valence in motor learning, especially with respect to motor automatization processes and the EPAC hypothesis (Agethen & Krause, ; Krause et al, ). There are studies investigating error‐related EEG signals in complex motor tasks and evidence found for a valence effect in the FRN (Grand et al, ; Joch, Hegele, Maurer, Müller, & Maurer, , ; Krigolson & Holroyd, ; Maurer, Maurer, & Müller, ; Vocat, Pourtois, & Vuilleumier, ).…”