Time of Fast Learning in Speed-Accuracy Tasks is Different for Children and Adults

Abstract

Research background and hypothesis. Motor learning is characterized by specific set of changes in performance parameters which occur gradually over a course of learning period.Research aim. The aim of the study was to establish and compare the characteristics of learning speed-accuracy movements of children and adults. Research methods. The research participants were 13 healthy boys, 16 girls, 5 healthy men and 7 women. The research was carried out applying the analyzer of dynamic parameters of human leg and arm movement (DPA-1). We registered maximal and average movement speed, the reaction time and the movement trajectory of the right hand. Research results. We established signifi cant differences (p < 0.05–0.001) in reaction time (RT), average movement speed (Va), maximal movement speed (Vm) and movement trajectory (S) between children and adults. Discussion and conclusions. Motor adaptation in timescales of minutes is supported by two distinct processes: one process when a person learns slowly from errors but has strong retention, and another process is when a person learns rapidly from errors but has poor retention (Ethier et al., 2008). We might only speculate that children used the second strategy more than adults. The time of fast learning in a speed-accuracy task was different between children and adults. The accuracy was most improved by children at the expense of the quickness, while adults improved only the average velocity of their performance. Besides, most of the variability of performance variables changed more signifi cantly in children than in adults.

Comparative Analysis of Learning Speed and Accuracy Movements for Healthy Persons and Persons with Multiple Sclerosis

“…Slow learning process is characterized by slow learning and slow forgetting (Ethier et al, 2008). In speed and accuracy tasks, children's accuracy improves at the expense of their speed, but for adults only the average speed of movement increases (Motiejūnaitė et al, 2011). In this research the results in both groups improved, and the accuracy did not decrease in either group.…”