The impact of error frequency on errorless and errorful learning of object locations using a novel paradigm

Abstract

Errorless learning (EL) is an approach in which errors are eliminated or reduced as much as possible while learning of new information or skills. In contrast, during trial-and-error − or errorful − learning (TEL) errors are not reduced and are often even promoted. There is a complex and conflicting pattern of evidence whether EL or TEL may result in better memory performance. One major confound in the extant literature is that most EL studies have not controlled for the number of errors made during TEL, resulting in a large variability in the amount of errors committed. This variability likely explains why studies on the cognitive underpinnings of EL and TEL have produced mixed findings. In this study, a novel objectlocation learning task was employed to examine EL and TEL in 30 healthy young adults. The number of errors was systematically manipulated, allowing us to investigate the impact of frequency of errors on learning outcome. The results showed that recall from memory was significantly better during EL. However, the number of errors made during TEL did not influence the performance in young adults. Altogether, our novel paradigm is promising for measuring EL and TEL, allowing for more accurate analyses to understand the impact of error frequency on a person's learning ability and style.

Prevention is better than cure: effects of errors on memory performance during spatial learning in healthy aging

“…In line with these findings, our results indicate that OA employ a different strategy than YA by relying more on rewarding, positive feedback following correct responses irrespective of the error frequency, whereas the performance of YA could predominantly be influenced by the value of the first error [29]. The present study extends the previous results obtained using the Drawer task in cognitively unimpaired OA by showing that the same pattern of results (i.e., a beneficial effect of EL compared to TEL, but no effect of error frequency on memory outcome) can also be observed in YA [16].…”

“…enabling us to recall where we have stored our wallet, keys, or glasses) [17]. We hypothesized that YA would perform better after EL compared to TEL, but that error frequency would not influence recall performance in this group, thus replicating previous findings in YA [16]. In addition, Kessels et al [10] and Ariel and Moffat [18] demonstrated that OA perform worse than YA on explicit spatial learning and memory tasks, for instance tasks in which participants had to acquire, store and retrieve the locations of everyday objects in one of five virtual rooms (living room, bedroom, study room, bathroom and kitchen), but that implicit spatial learning, metacognition and navigation were largely preserved at older age.…”

“…We used a recently developed computerized object-location learning and memory task (i.e., the Drawer task), that can be used to study both EL and TEL [16]. The task consisted of an acquisition round that was immediately followed by a free-recall round.…”

“…The performance of the participants on the Drawer Task was measured by the number of incorrectly recalled locations in the free-recall test across participants (with a maximum of 20 errors; referred to as the 'error score'). A second measure was the absolute distance between the target location and the recalled location averaged across all 20 items (with a maximum of 5.66 in arbitrary units, referred to as the 'distance score', for more details see [16]).…”

“…In the present study, we compared memory recall performance in healthy YA and OA after EL and TEL using a spatial learning task, in which the amount of errors (defined as incorrect responses) committed during the acquisition phase of TEL was carefully manipulated [16]. That is, participants made 0, 2, 3, 4, or 5 incorrect responses (i.e., errors) before their response was considered to be correct.…”