The effect of amount of training on retention of a simple motor skill with 0- and 5-trial delays of knowledge of results.

Abstract

AN EARLIER PAPER by the present authors (Lavery & Suddon, 1962) indicated that retention of a simple motor skill was directly related to the amount of training if knowledge of results (KR) during training was delayed by five intervening trials. On the other hand, when 0-trial delay KR was used in training, all groups, regardless of the amount of training given, exhibited the same level of retention, a finding previously reported by Baker and Young (1960). The influence of mode of KR upon the relation between amount of training and retention has interesting implications. For instance, if the cues inherent in the task are better perceived with 5-trial delay than with 0-trial delay in KR, as the earlier paper concludes (Lavery & Suddon, 1962), it can be expected that if KR is delayed, the amount of training received will determine the level of accuracy achieved in retention trials. In other words, if subjects are trained to use die cues which can be used in retention trials, retention should be a direct function of the amount of that type of training. On the other hand, if KR in training does not affect feedback which is available during retention trials, retention should not necessarily be affected by the number of trials done with that type of KR. In the earlier experimental results it was impossible to tell whether the level of acquisition, the number of trials in training, or both affected the level of retention. The level of accuracy reached at the end of training is not a variable which can easily be manipulated, because of the large differences among individual learning rates. For this reason an experiment was designed in which subjects were trained in either of two methods of KR (0-trial or 5-trial delay) while being given alternating series of knowledge (K) and no-knowledge (NK) trials of the same KR technique. The NK runs afforded a measure of retention resulting from the various numbers of training trials. It was expected that various levels of retention would result from different amounts of training under the 5-trial delay method and that one consistent level of retention would result from all the amounts of training received under 0-trail delay KR.

Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.

“…Some of the studies previously discussed included no-KR transfer tests, and they permit an evaluation of the effects on learning. Smith (1963) and Lavery (1962) used a summary trials-delay procedure, and Lavery (1964b), Lavery and Suddon (1962), and Suddon and Lavery (1962) used the trials-delay technique. Whereas the trials-delay technique depressed performance in acquisition, it enhanced performance in transfer.…”

Study on correlation between motor and memory learning

“…The information relating to the movement were divided into three categories: 1) Peripheral feedback or by countermovement of organs, mainly tactile and kinaesthetic; 2) Internal feedback or against central information, referred to by different authors also efferent copy or corollary discharge; 3) External feedback or counter on the effects of movement, that is, knowledge of the result; knowledge of result (CR) can be defined as information that represents the difference between the answers given and those ideals. An agreement in the literature regarding the motor behaviour is that some CR is necessary for learning a new motor response (Shea, Shebilske, & Worchel, 1993).…”

“…Surprisingly, there was no effect attributable to the different ways in which information reduction. Evidence in support of the guiding theory also stem from data on the effectiveness of a summary CR (Gable, Shea, & Wright, 1991;Suddon & Lavery, 1962;Schmidt, Lange, & Young, 1990;Carnahan et al, 1996) and a CR average (Yao, Fischman, & Wang, 1994). A summary CR (summary KR) means to give information about the outcome of each test in a series of tests only after the whole series has been completed, instead of providing the feedback extrinsic after each single test.…”

A perceptual learning approach to skill transfer for manual control.

“…Lavery and his associates Lavery and Suddon, 1962;Suddon and Lavery, 1962;Smith, 1963) contrasted performance feedback given after every trial with summaries of performance feedback given after blocks of trials for differential effects on the acquisition of simple motor skills. A variety of tasks were used, but all were ballistic.…”