Investigating the Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of an Incidental Choice on Motor Learning

Abstract

The present study investigated whether motivation and augmented feedback processing explain the effect of an incidental choice on motor learning, and examined whether motivation and feedback processing generally predict learning. Accordingly, participants were assigned to one of two groups, choice or yoked, then asked to practice a nondominant arm beanbag toss. The choice group was allowed to choose the color of the beanbag with which they made the toss, whereas the yoked group was not. Motor learning was determined by delayed-posttest accuracy and precision. Motivation and augmented feedback processing were indexed via the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and electroencephalography, respectively. We predicted the choice group would exhibit greater motor learning, motivation, and augmented feedback processing, and that the latter two variables would predict learning. Results showed that an incidental choice failed to enhance motor learning, motivation, or augmented feedback processing. In addition, neither motivation nor augmented feedback processing predicted motor learning. However, motivation and augmented feedback processing were correlated, with both factors predicting changes in practice performance. Thus, results suggest the effect of incidental choices on motor learning may be tenuous, and indicate motivation and augmented feedback processing may be more closely linked to changes in practice performance than motor learning.

Motivational Effects of Enhanced Expectancies for Motor Learning in Individuals With High and Low Self-Efficacy

“…However, on the transfer test, the Good KR and Low SE group had higher accuracy scores than the other three groups. These results are in line with previous studies in which enhanced expectancies benefitted motor performance and motor learning ( Avila, Chiviacowsky, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012; Badami et al, 2012;Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007;Chiviacowsky et al, 2009;Ghorbani, 2019;Gonc¸alves et al, 2018;Grand, Daou, Lohse, & Miller, 2017;Lessa et al, 2018;Montes, Wulf, & Navalta, 2018;Ong & Hodges, 2018;Pascua, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015;Saemi et al, 2011Saemi et al, , 2012Stoate, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012;Wulf et al, 2014), but they extend these findings to suggest a particular benefit for individuals with low SE ratings. In addition, our results showed that during acquisition, KR from good trials did not (further) increase SE of participants in Good KR and High SE group (see Figure 2), as these participants simply maintained their initially high level of SE during acquisition.…”

Participation can make a difference to be competitive in sports: A systematic review on the relation between complex motor development and self-controlled learning settings

“…Studies with drop-outs reported the losses adequately. 49,52–54 In summary, the analyses of the methodological quality and risk of bias revealed a tight range of methodological issues and indicated a moderate to strong quality within the appraised approaches. Taking the identified limitations into account, the systematically collected studies thus provide a useful basis capable of informing responsible actors in (competitive) sports and future research.…”

“…The dates of publication ranged from 1995 to 2018, with a clear focus on the last four years. Seventeen studies were conducted in the USA, 42,45,46,50,54–65 six in Brazil, 41,47,66–69 four in Germany, 51,70–72 two in Canada, 52,53 and one each in Spain 40 and Korea. 48 In total, 1273 participants were included in the 31 trials, at least 644 were females (about 51%; two studies made no specification regarding gender).…”

Target Size Manipulations Affect Error-Processing Duration and Success Perceptions but not Behavioural Indices of Learning

“…Although it is unlikely that individual differences in random allocation explain all the group differences seen in the literature, it is possible that they might explain some of the positive results. In at least two other motor learning studies, measures of motivation (which is expected to mediate success perception effects) were shown to be unrelated to retention outcomes [37,38].…”