Motor Control and Feedback (Part 4)
April 15th 2011 05:13
Review of Literatures
The researches stated in this section are not purely done within the rehabilitation scene. But all of them tell us a lot on how feedback can affect learning in almost all aspects of task education. As we all know the process of learning is uniform to all individuals, abled or disabled, since the nervous system that makes learning possible is plastic (Cramer and Bastings, 1999), capable of adapting to the demands of the body, and capable of producing appropriate reactions to certain stimuli despite of the damage imposed on its structures . There would only be a difference when it comes to how long would an individual learn given his normal or abnormal conditions.
As early as in the late 70’s onwards various studies had been conducted that show how feedback is being used in teaching new skills. Wallace and Hagler in 1979 conducted a study comparing the effects of KP, KR, and social reinforcements. As we can observe all of the variables that they were concerned of that time are augmented types of feedback. They hypothesized that the level of performance would increase to a greater extent in individuals who received KP and KR feedback, compared to those who received KR and social reinforcements (SR). Using a population of 24 right handed university students with no background in basketball, the hypothesis was tested. These students were divided into three groups. The task consisted of a non-dominant (left) handed shot about 45 degrees to the left of basket, so that the desired outcome occurred without interference from the rim. During the first stage, skill learning, all groups received feedback. Two of the groups received the obvious visual KR feedback as they saw their shots either sink into the net or not. Only one group received social reinforcements (SR) such as“good job",“awesome,” or “too bad, try again”. The other group, in addition to the KR, received feedback based on the quality of their performance. First this specific feedback offered information about changing one’s stance to demonstrate better outcomes, followed by information regarding the motion of the body during the shot. These 50 trials were followed by a five minute rest period and then 25 performance trials. This second group of trials demonstrated the retention of the learned skill and the result of the feedback on the individual’s original skill level. During this phase, no KP or SR was given; only the evident visual outcome was received by the shooter. Every participant’s performance was graded using a rating system that awarded points per trial depending on the detailed outcome of the shot. The results showed that the group who received KP in addition to KR out-performed the other groups during the performance trials and the learning ones. Additionally, the group who received KP continued to improve after initiation of the performance phase and the withdrawal of the KP feedback. There was no improvement found during the verbal withdrawal trials of the KR and SR group.
In this study we can conclude that good KP feedback has a carry-over when it comes to later stages of doing the task. In addition we can also conclude that providing augmented feedback as early as in the first phase of learning usually leads to better ability for an individual to provide himself with inherent feedback later on when left alone.
Petruzzello and Corbin (1988) studied the effects of performance feedback (KP) on female self-confidence. They chose a balance task and a pursuit task, and began their study with a questionnaire to potential participants to confirm that the subjects agreed in the skill’s gender neutrality. Results showed that the tasks were considered neutral. A final group of 69 women were then told the objective of the first task and it was to be performed. They were divided into two groups. A practice session was held, followed by completion of a questionnaire of the prediction of performance. Then each participant underwent three trials. One group received KP feedback after each trial of the given task. Another group received no feedback at all meaning they have to rely on their natural or inherent feedback. The group that received no feedback was told to relax and wait between the trials. The same procedure was followed with the second task as well.
Significant interaction was found between confidence levels of the females and the absence or presence of KP feedback. The KP feedback group demonstrated considerably more self-confidence than the group who received no feedback on the tasks.
This time we can infer that if we delayed augmented feedback or do not give it at all, this might lead to low level of self-confidence. We can also say that by doing so, a person’s intrinsic feedback becomes poor or weak.
Butler and Nisan (1985) also conducted a study showcasing the importance of feedback. In their study they gathered three groups of students which will carry out uniform activities for three sessions from standardized work booklets. One group received KP in the form of task-related comments after the first and the second sessions. The other group received KR in the form of numerical scores also after the first and the second session. However the last group did not receive any augmented feedback at all. The results of the third session were not returned to the students but after the said session, all of the groups were asked to answer a motivation questionnaire.
Result showed that KP group was mostly motivated than any of the other groups. It also showed that the groups with augmented feedback performed better than the group with none (only intrinsic feedback). As between the KP and KR groups, KP group proved to be much better than the other group that received KR.
Another study by Hodges and Franks (2001) proves the superiority of KP over KR. The task that was performed is circle-making on a computer screen. One group of subjects received KR in the form of goal attainment while the other received KP in the form of limb positioning awareness with the use of mirrors. In this study, KP group appeared to have less error in doing the task compared to the KR group.
Conclusions
Basing from the studies that we discussed, KP seems to be the most potent tool in rendering feedback as well as boosting a performer’s intrinsic feedback mechanism (especially later on in training when we stop giving augmented feedback). In the rehabilitation setting, especially among neurologic patients we treat them as learners of new tasks or recently lost ability. It would be justifiable if we are also to consider the use of augmented type of feedback especially KP. Why? As rehabilitation professionals we need to understand that the patients we handle need to be acquainted and/or reoriented with how it feels to move or to do the task at hand. Not only that we cannot rely on their inherent perceptions alone given their disabilities they themselves cannot rely on their own selves alone. And so they need us.[/COLOR]
References :
Butler, R. and Nisan, M. (1985). Effects of no feedback, task-realted comments; and
grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Education
Psychology.
Cramer, S. and Bastings, E. (1999). Mapping clinically relevant plasticity after stroke.
Neuropharmacology. www.elsevier.com
Guadagnoli, M. and Kohl, R. (2001). Knowledge of Results for Motor Learning: the
Relationship between Error Estimation anf Frequency. University of Nevada
Las Vegas.
Hodges, N. J., Franks, I. M. (2001). Learning a coordination skill: Interactive efforts of
instruction and feedback. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 132-142.
Petruzzello, S. J., Corbin, C. B. (1988). Effects of performance feedback on female self-
confidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 174-183.
Schmidt, R.A., and Lee, T.D. (1999). Motor control and learning: implication for
neurological rehabilitation. New York.
Sherwood, D.E. and Lee, T.D. (2003). Schema theory: critical review and implications
for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health.74, 376-382.
Thorpe, D.E. (2003). Differential effect of internal versus external focus of attention in
the learning of a novel motor task in children. Center for Human Movement Science.
Valvano, J. and Carollo J. (2003). The role of manual guidance in pediatric physical
therapy interventions. Tampa, FL.
Wallace, S. A., Hagler, R. W. (1979). Knowledge of performance and the learning of a
closed motor skill. Research Quarterly. 50, 265-271.
Zucker, E. (2003). Caregiver;’s resourcebook. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
| 19 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
