Advertisement

Frequent Augmented Feedback Can Degrade Learning: Evidence and Interpretations

  • Richard A. Schmidt
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASID, volume 62)

Abstract

The role of augmented information feedback for motor learning has been evaluated recently by an examination of its role on performance on transfer or retention tests. Several lines of evidence from various research paradigms show that, as compared to feedback provided frequently (after every trial), less frequent feedback provides benefits in learning as measured on tests of long-term retention. Such effects are of course contrary to most accounts of the learning process in human skills. In this paper, these lines of evidence are first briefly reviewed, and then several interpretations are provided in terms of the underlying processes that are degraded by frequent feedback. These decrements for frequent feedback seem to be caused by feedback’s tendency to generate maladaptive short-term corrections, by a blockage of several sets of information processing activities, or by both of these factors in some combination.

Keywords

Retention Test Acquisition Phase Retrieval Practice Retention Performance Average Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J.A. (1971) ’A closed-loop theory of motor learning’, Journal of Motor Behavior 3, 111–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Annett, J. (1969) Feedback and Human Behavior, Penguin, Middlesex, England.Google Scholar
  3. Bilodeau, E.A., & Bilodeau, I.M. (1958) ’Variable frequency knowledge of results and thelearning of simple skill’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 55, 379–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilodeau, E.A., Bilodeau, I.M., & Schumsky, D.A. (1959) ’Some effects of introducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice’, Journal of ExperimentalPsychology 58, 142–144.Google Scholar
  5. Bilodeau, E.A., Sulzer, J.L., & Levy, C.M. (1962) ’Theory and data on the interrelationships of three factors of memory’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 76, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilodeau, I.M. (1966) ’Information feedback,’ in E.A. Bilodeau (ed.), Acquisition of Skill, Academic Press, New York, pp. 255–296.Google Scholar
  7. Bjork, R.A. (1975) ’Retrieval practice’, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  8. Guay, M., Salmoni, A.W., & Mcllwain, J. (1990) ’Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Testing the guidance hypothesis’, Unpublished manuscript, Laurentian University.Google Scholar
  9. Guthrie, E.R. (1952) The Psychology of Learning, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Henry, F.M. (1968) ’Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill’, in R.C. Brown and G.S. Kenyon (eds), Classical Studies on Physical Activity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 331–340. (Originally published in 1958)Google Scholar
  11. Holding, D.H. (1976) ’An approximate transfer surface’, Journal of Motor Behavior 8, 1–9.Google Scholar
  12. Hull, C.L. (1943) Principles of Behavior, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Lavery, J.J. (1962) ’Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge of results’, Canadian Journal of Psychology 16, 300–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lavery, J.J., & Suddon, F.H. (1962) ’Retention of simple motor skills as a function of the number of trials by which KR is delayed’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 15, 231–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, T.D., & Carnahan, H. (1990) ’Bandwidth knowledge of results and motor learning: More than just a relative frequency effect’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Magill, R.A., & Hall, K.G. (1990) ’A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition’, Human Movement Science, in press.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, D.E., Smith, J.E.K., Kornblum, S., Abrams, R.A., & Wright, C.E. (1990) ’Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in aimed movements: Toward a theory of rapid voluntary action’, in M. Jeannerod (ed.), Attention and Performance XIII, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 173–226.Google Scholar
  18. Newell, K.M. (1977) ’Knowledge of results and motor learning’, Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews 4, 195–228.Google Scholar
  19. Newell, K.M. (1984) Personal communication to R.A. Schmidt.Google Scholar
  20. Nicholson, D.E., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990a) ’Feedback scheduling effects in acquisition’, Unpublished manuscript, Motor Control Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  21. Nicholson, D.E., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990b) ’Information feedback produces interference in reproducing movements’, Unpublished manuscript, Motor Control Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  22. Proteau, L., Lee, T.D., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990) ’Scheduling variations in summary feedback’, Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec.Google Scholar
  23. Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R.G., Girouard, Y., & Dugas, C. (1987) ’On the type of information used to control and learn an aiming movement after moderate and extensive training’, Human Movement Science 6, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salmoni, A.W., Schmidt, R.A., & Walter, C.B. (1984) ’Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal’, Psychological Bulletin 95, 355–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanderson, S. (1929) ’Intention in motor learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt, R.A. (1975) ’A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning’, Psychological Review 82, 225–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt, R.A. (1988) Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis (2nd ed), Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Schmidt, R.A., Lange, C.A., & Young, D.E. (1990) ’Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning’, Human Movement Science, in press.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt, R.A., Shapiro, D.C., Winstein, C.J., Young, D.E., & Swinnen, S. (1987) Feedback and Motor Skill Training: Relative Frequency of KR and Summary KR. Technical Report No. 1/87, Motor Control Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, R.A., & White, J.L. (1972) ’Evidence for an error detection mechanism in motor skills: A test of Adams’ closed-loop theory’, Journal of Motor Behavior 4, 143–153.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt, R.A., Young, D.E., Swinnen, S., & Shapiro, D.C. (1989) ’Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15, 352–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt, R.A., Zelaznik, H.N., Hawkins, B., Frank, J.S., & Quinn, J.T. (1979) ’Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts’, Psychological Review 86, 415–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shea, J.B., & Upton, G. (1976) The effects on skill acquisition of an interpolated motor short-term memory task during the KR-delay interval’, Journal of Motor Behavior 8, 277–281.Google Scholar
  34. Sherwood, D.E. (1983) The Impulse Variability Model: Tests of Major Assumptions and Predictions, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  35. Sherwood, D.E. (1988) ’Effect of bandwidth knowledge of results on movement consistency’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 66, 535–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swinnen, S. (1987) Knowledge of Results Delay Activities and Motor Learning, Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  37. Swinnen, S., Schmidt, R.A., Nicholson, D.E., & Shapiro, D.C. (1990) ’Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16, 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thorndike, E.L. (1927) ’The law of effect’, American Journal of Psychology 39, 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tolman, E.C. (1929) Purposive Behavior of Animals and Men, Century, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Trowbridge, M.H., & Cason, H. (1932) ’An experimental study of Thorndike’s theory of learning’, Journal of General Psychology 7, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D.M. (1973) ’Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory’, Psychological Review 80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winstein, C.J. (1988) Relative Frequency of Information Feedback in Motor Performance and Learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  43. Winstein, C.J., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990) ’Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16, 677–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R.A. (1989) The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15, 748–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, D.E. (1988) Knowledge of Performance and Motor Learning, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  46. Young, D.E., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990) ’Augmented kinematic feedback for skill learning’, Manuscript in preparation, Motor Control Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations