Advertisement

The Effect of Feedback in a Computerized System of Puzzle Completion Tasks

  • Nirit GavishEmail author
  • Hagit Krisher
  • Guy Madar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)

Abstract

The explosive growth of computerized systems aimed at improving cognitive functions has rised the question of provision of feedback to trainees during the training. In order to address some of the issues regarding feedback, two studies were performed in computerized systems for puzzle completion tasks. The first study questioned whether the mere knowledge that feedback is available should produce a motivational effect, creating a psychological state of mind that could improve training and transfer. We tested this hypothesis among 76 undergraduate students using a puzzle replication task. The results demonstrated that performance was improved among trainees who are given the opportunity to receive feedback compared with those for whom feedback is not available. The second study evaluated the effect of a complementary audio feedback (CAF) in a 50-piece puzzle completion task among 53 undergraduate students. Results demonstrated that the difference between the higher achievers and the lower achievers was larger in the CAF group compared to the Control group. In addition, while the Control group used a planning strategy more, the CAF group used a trial and error strategy more. Hence, CAF which is in the low-level of feedback is not recommended for the weaker performers.

Keywords

Feedback Executive functions Motivation Puzzle Auditory feedback 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by ORT Braude Research Committee, Israel.

References

  1. 1.
    Buonomano, D.V., Merzenich, M.M.: Cortical plasticity: from synapses to maps. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 149–186 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Owen, A.M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J.A., Stenton, R.R., Dajani, S., Burns, A.S., Howard, R.J., Ballard, C.G.: Putting brain training to the test. Nature 465, 775–779 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stern, Y., Blumen, H.M., Rich, L.W., Richards, A., Herzberg, G., Gopher, D.: Space fortress game training and executive control in older adults: a pilot intervention. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 18, 653–677 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kieling, C., Goncalves, R.R.F., Tannock, R., Castellanos, F.X.: Neurobiology of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 17, 285–307 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinhausen, H.C.: The heterogeneity of causes and courses of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 120, 392–399 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(1), 81–112 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salmoni, A.R., Schmidt, R.A., Walter, C.B.: Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical appraisal. Psychol. Bull. 5, 355–386 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, R.A., Young, D.E., Swinnen, S., Shapiro, D.C.: Summary of knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 15, 352–359 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooks, L.: The suppression of visualization by reading. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 19, 289–299 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frick, R.: Using an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span. Mem. Cogn. 12, 507–514 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mayer, R.E., Anderson, R.B.: Animations need narrations: an experimental test of dual-coding hypothesis. J. Educ. Psychol. 83, 484–490 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayer, R.E., Anderson, R.B.: The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 444–452 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer, R.E., Sims, V.K.: For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? extension of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 86, 389–401 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vitense, H.S., Jacko, J.A., Emery, V.K.: Multimodal feedback: an assessment of performance and mental workload. Ergonomics 46, 68–87 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cockburn, A., Brewster, S.: Multimodal feedback for the acquisition of small targets. Ergonomics 48(9), 1129–1150 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lecuyer, A., Megard, C., Burkhardt, J.M., Lim, T., Coquillart, S., Coiffet, P., Graux, L.: The effect of haptic, visual and auditory feedback on an insertion task on a 2-screen workbench. In: Proceedings of the Immersive Projection Technology Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., Burrows, L.: Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71(2), 230–244 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steele, C.M., Aronson, J.: Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69(5), 797–811 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dijksterhuis, A., Van Knippenberg, A.: The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74(4), 865 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ORT Braude CollegeKarmielIsrael
  2. 2.Technion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations