Knowledge of Results for Motor Learning: Relationship Between Error Estimation and Knowledge of Results Frequency

• Published in: Journal of motor behavior 2001-06, Vol.33 (2), p.217-224
• Main Authors: Guadagnoli, Mark A., Kohl, Robert M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activity levels. Psychomotricity; Adult; Biological and medical sciences; error estimation; feedback; Feedback (Response); Feedback - physiology; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Guidance; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Information Sources; knowledge of results; Learning - physiology; Memory; motor learning; Motor Skills - physiology; Periodicity; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Psychomotor activities; Psychomotor Skills; Random Allocation; Skill Development
• ISSN: 0022-2895; 1940-1027
• DOI: 10.1080/00222890109603152

The authors of the present study investigated the apparent contradiction between early and more recent views of knowledge of results (KR), the idea that how one is engaged before receiving KR may not be independent of how one uses that KR. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, participants (N = 64) practiced a simple force-production task and (a) were required, or not required, to estimate error about their previous response and (b) were provided KR either after every response (100%) or after every 5th response (20%) during acquisition. A no-KR retention test revealed an interaction between acquisition error estimation and KR frequencies. The group that received 100% KR and was required to error estimate during acquisition performed the best during retention. The 2 groups that received 20% KR performed less well. Finally, the group that received 100% KR and was not required to error estimate during acquisition performed the poorest during retention. One general interpretation of that pattern of results is that motor learning is an increasing function of the degree to which participants use KR to test response hypotheses (J. A. Adams, 1971; R. A. Schmidt, 1975). Practicing simple responses coupled with error estimation may embody response hypotheses that can be tested with KR, thus benefiting motor learning most under a 100% KR condition. Practicing simple responses without error estimation is less likely to embody response hypothesis, however, which may increase the probability that participants will use KR to guide upcoming responses, thus attenuating motor learning under a 100% KR condition. The authors conclude, therefore, that how one is engaged before receiving KR may not be independent of how one uses KR.