This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham] On: 24 August 2014, At: 03:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time a
a
a
Ben Sidaway , Malcolm Fairweather , John Powell & Greg Hall
a
a
Louisiana State University , USA Published online: 26 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Ben Sidaway , Malcolm Fairweather , John Powell & Greg Hall (1992) The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63:3, 328-334, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10608750 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10608750
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RUNI'C. CllIII*rIy far &ere'" .ad Sport
e 1992 bytheAmerican Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 328·334
The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Ben Sidaway, Malcolm Fairweather, John Powell, and Greg Hall
Key wards: summary knowledge of results, knowledge of results frequency, motor skill retention
T
he recent resurgence of interest in the effect of knowledge ofresults (KR) on motor skill acquisition owes much to the guidance hypothesis of Salmoni, Schmidt, and Walter (1984). After an extensive review of the KR literature Salmoni et al. suggested that, when KR is abundant during the acquisition of a motor skill, it functions to guide performance. However, ifKR is withdrawn during a retention test, performance may suffer as a result of this earlier guidance. In learning environments in which KR is readily available, KR acts as a "crutch" for performance in that it enables accurate performance without requiring subjects to engage in the cognitive processing necessary to support accurate no-KR performance. Following conception of the guidance hypothesis, Schmidt and his coworkers have investigated the summary KRmethodologyfor evidence to supportit (Schmidt, Lange, & Young, 1990; Schmidt, Young, Swinnen, & Shapiro, 1989). Schmidtetal. (1989) had subjects learn a 55O-mstiming task. Four groups differed in the number of trials summarized in the acquisition phase. These groups were compared to subjects who received immediate KR following each trial. In acquisition there was a trend for poorer performance as the number of trials summarized increased, but in a 2-day delayed no-KR retention test there was a significant trend for enhanced performance in the groups that had longer summary lengths in acquisition. These results were taken as support for the guidance hypothesis because longer summary lengths were thought to provide less guidance in acquisition and consequently to enhance retention.
Submitted: October 76, 7997 Revision accepted: March 6, 7992 Ben Sidaway isanassistant professor atLouisiana State University. Malcolm Fairweather, John Powe/~ andGreg Hall are graduate students atthesame institution. 328
In an attempt to discover the underlying process behind the summary KR effect, Sidaway, Moore, and Schoenfelder-Zohdi (1991) manipulated the amount of information in the summary presentation. They reasoned that in Schmidt et al.'s (1989) experiment, summary length was confounded with rate of KR presentation. Although in the Schmidt et al, study all groups received KR for the same number of trials (100% relative frequency), groups with longer summary lengths were given KR less frequently. Sidaway et al. proposed that the number of no-KR trials between KR presentations might be the key to the summary KR effect. To examine this notion, Sidaway et al. followed Schmidt et al.'s (1989) task and procedures for the summary 1 (1/1) and summary 15 (15/15) conditions but added three other conditions. Like the 15/15 condition, subjects in these conditions did not receive any KR during blocks of 15 acquisition trials; however, rather than seeinga graphical representation of all 15 trials, they saw only the last 7 (15/7), the last3 (15/3), or the last 1 (15/1) ofthe trials performed in that block. In this way Sidaway et al. kept the KR presentation frequency constant at 7%, while KR relative frequency was allowed to vary. The results supported the importance ofKR presentation frequency, as no differences were found between any of the 7% frequency of presentation conditions in no-KR retention tests. Learning was unaffected by the amount ofinformation presented in the summary KR display. Unexpectedly, however, Sidaway et al. also found that subjects in the 1/1 condition exhibited IO-min and 2-day retention performance superior to all other conditions. The results for the 1/1 condition are even more puzzlingwhen one considers that the investigators closely followed the task and procedures ofSchmidtetal. (1989). Their replication did, however, differ in one potentially important variable. Sidaway et al. required subjects to complete the linear slide timing task in 750 ms, whereas in Schmidt etal.'s study the goal time was 550 ms. Sidaway et al. chose the 75O-ms goal because theywanted to allow subjects the possibility oferring on the fast side as well as on the slow side. Summary KR might operate differently
ROES: September 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidewey. Feirweether. Powel~ endHell
when ballisticlike movements are made than when movements are performed more slowly, allowing time for concurrent intrinsic feedback to playa role in control. Lavery's (1962, 1964) earlier work on summary KR. which had been taken as support for the guidance hypothesis, also used open-loop tasks. It may be that summary KR enhances retention of rapid tasks because it primarily operates on a subject's recall schema. Schmidt (1988) suggests that very rapid tasks are controlled largely by a recall schema because there is insufficient time for feedback to be used. On the other hand, immediate KR may be most beneficial to learning when a response is sufficiently long to allow use of intrinsic feedback in movement control. These responses are controlled by a recognition schema that stores the sensory consequences of previous responses for comparison purposes. The sensory consequences of a response are short lived, and, so that recognition schema may be updated after each response, immediate KR must be provided. In other words, the refinement of recognition schema can only take place while the sensory consequences ofa response are still in working memory; thus, the effectiveness of summary and immediate KR may depend on the relative importance of recall and recognition schema in controlling the response. The present study was designed to explore whether movement time influences the summary KR effect and therefore can possibly explain the differences between the results of the immediate KR groups ofSchmidt et al, (1989) and Sidaway et al, (1991). Also of interest was replication ofSidaway et al.'s finding that the amount of information in the summary display did not affect leaming. The procedures replicated those of Sidaway et al. except for the target movement times. Subjects were required to complete the linear slide timing task in 500 ms or in 1,000 ms, Based on previous results and the foregoing discussion, it was predicted that the summary KReffectwould be found in the 500-ms condition but not in the 1,000-ms condition. Finally, additional groups were added that received both immediate KR after each trial and a summary KR presentation after each 15 trials. These groups were added to discover if the potentially damaging guidance of immediate KR trials could be counteracted by a summary representation ofthose same trials.
Method The task and procedures closely followed those of Sidawayetal. (1991) apart from the movement time goals set for the different conditions. In all conditions subjects performed the same number of trials in acquisition and also participated in the same IO-min and 2-day delayed no-KR retention tests.
ROES: September '992
Subjects One hundred and twenty (N= 120) right-handed male university students participated in the experiment for extra class credit. All were naive to the purposes ofthe experiment, and none had prior experience with the task. Subjects signed informed consent forms before participating.
Apparatus andTask The apparatus was identical to that used by Sidaway et al. (1991) . For a detailed description of the apparatus the reader is referred to the previously published paper. The apparatus consisted of a low-friction linear slide mounted horizontally on a table top with microswitches positioned at the start and 40 cm along the slide. Both switches were interfaced with an Apple lie microcomputer that contained the millisecond timer. Located beneath and orthogonal to the guiding rods ofthe linear slide were two 5-cm-wide paper strips positioned 15 cm and ~O em to the left ofthe start position. These served as targets for movement reversals. Subjects sat facing the apparatus and grasped the handle of the slide with the right hand. Shortly after a verbal "go" signalwas given by the experimenter, subjects moved the slide left to the ~O-cm target, then right to the 15-cm target, and then left again until the slide passed the switch 40 cm from the start. Subjects were encouraged to follow through past the 4O-cm mark. In 5 of the 10 conditions examined, subjects were instructed to complete the whole movement in a time of 1,000 ms. In the remaining 5 conditions subjects were required to perform the movement in 500 ms. For each trial, only temporal accuracy at the 4O-cm mark was recorded.
Procedures The 120 subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 10 different conditions, 12 subjects per condition. All 10 groups of subjects participated in 6 blocks of 15 trials in acquisition and I block of 25 trials in 10-min and 2-day delayed no-KR retention tests. After each block ofacquisition trials, all groups received 20 s of KR presentation and/or rest. In 6 of the 10 conditions, ~ from each movement time goal, subjects completed each IS-trial acquisition block without any KR. At the end of each block subjects in these conditions received KR on either all 15 of the trials performed (15/15), the last ~ ofthe 15 performed (15/~), or only the last trial of the 15 performed (15/1). Under these schedules, all 6 groups received a KR presentation frequency of7%. Two other groups of subjects, one from each temporal condition, received KR immediately after each acquisition trial (1/1) but did not see a summary of any of their trials following completion of the trial block. The final two
329
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powel'andHall
groups (Both), one from each temporal condition, received both immediate KR following each trial and a summary ofallIS trials performed following completion of each 15 trial acquisition block. The intertrial interval was constant for all groups at approximately 5 s. Temporal accuracy at the 4O-cmmark was recorded by the microcomputer, which graphically displayed this information to the subjects on the screen after each trial and/or after each block of acquisition trials. In each display the subjects were presented with a positive" axis and a positive/negative 'J axis. Trials were presented along the "axis, whereas temporal error from the 500-ms or l,ooO-ms goals was scaled on the 'J axis. Each trial was represented by a small square on the graph in relation to the zeroJ temporal error" axis. In the 1/1 and 15/1 conditions, subjects only saw one KR square on the screen at anyone time. In the summary presentations computer software joined the KR information for each trial by line segments. Following the 90 trials of acquisition all groups rested outside the testing room for 10 min. After this rest all subjects performed 25 trials without receiving KR. An additional25-trial no-KR retention test was also given 2 days later.
Results For each acquisition block of 15 trials, absolute constanterror (ICEI), constant error (CE), and variable error (VE) were calculated. The same performance measures were also calculated for the two delayed retention tests. The acquisition data were analyzed in 2 x 5 x 6 (MT Goal x KR Condition x Blocks) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor. Similarly, the retention data were analyzed in 2 x 5 x 2 (MT Goal x KR Condition x Retention Test) ANOVAs with retention test being a repeated measure. For all F tests the probability level was computed using the Greenhouse-Geisser degrees-of-freedom adjustment (Greenhouse Be Geisser, 1959). The Newman Keuls post hoc procedure was used to analyze any F ratios significant at p < .05.
Acquisition The left-hand side of Figure 1 shows ICEI for the 5 KR conditions, in each MT goal, across the 6 blocks of 15 acquisition trials. The three-way ANOVA revealed a significantmaineffectforKRcondition,F (4,110) =8.0, P< .01. Post hoc analysis indicated that groups that received KR after every trial (i.e., 1/1 and Both KR conditions) had consistently lower ICEI scores than all other groups. There were no significant differences between the 1/1 (M = S5 ms, SE= 5 ms) and the Both KR (M = 26 ms, SE = S ms) conditions. The effect of blocks
330
was also significant, F (5, 550) = S7.7, P< .01, with error decreasing with increasing practice. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between KR condition and blocks, F (20, 550) = 2.9, P< .01. This was caused by the achievement of relatively stable performance in the 1/1 and Both conditions by Block S, whereas the summary groups, which did not receive immediate KR. exhibited a more gradual decline in error scores. The effect of MT goal and all other interactions did not approach significance. With the variation in movement velocity required by the MT goals, it was suspected that differences in response bias might occur. The left-hand side of Figure 2 shows CE for the 10 groups as a function of practice. Post hoc analysis of the main effect of KR condition, F (4, 110) = S.2, P< .05, revealed that only the Both (M = IS ms, SE = S ms) and the 15/1 (M = 68 ms, SE= 10 ms) groups differed significantly. Groups required to complete the task in 1,000 ms had significantly less bias (M = SO ms, SE = 6 ms) than those groups whose goal was 500 ms (M = 54 ms, SE= 6 ms), F (I, 110) = S.9, P< .05. As expected the main effect of blocks was significant, F (5,550) = 15.0,p< .01, with all groups decreasing their bias with practice. Variability in timing performance is shown as a function of practice in Figure S. The main effect of blocks was significant, F (5, 550) = 45.7, P< .01, with all groups showing a decrease in VE with practice. Significant main effectswere also found forKR condition,F (4,110) = S.2, P< .05, and for MT goal, F (I, 110) = 97.6, P< .01. Collapsing across blocks and KR conditions revealed mean VEs of ~ ms (SE =2 ms) and 67 ms (SE =S ms) for the 500 and 1,000 ms MT goals, respectively. Complicating these main effects was an interaction ofKR condition and MTgoal,F(4, 110) = S.4,p< .05, which was caused by the 15/1 and 15/15 conditions exhibiting agreaterincrease in variabilityfrom the 500 to the 1,000 ms conditions than the other KR conditions. One final analysis was conducted on the acquisition data to examine a possible explanation for the relative frequency effect demonstrated by Wmstein and Schmidt (1990). These investigators suggested that when KR is presented infrequently, subjects' responses tend to drift from the target behavior during the strings of no-KR trials. When KRis eventually provided, this drift is readily apparent to subjects and serves to facilitate the learning process. To test for this response drift, each block of 15 acquisition trials was splitinto Ssubblocks of5 trials each. Subjects' means for the firstand lastsubblockwithin each 15 trial acquisition block were then calculated. This analysis was not performed for the 1/1 and the Both KR conditions because KR was provided immediately after each trial in these conditions, and, therefore, no response drift was expected. The analysis also did not include the first 15 trial acquisition block because the first KR presentation was given after completion of this
RDES: September 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
block. A ~x 2 x 2 x 5 (KR Condition x MT Goal x Subblock x Block) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors was performed on the resulting means. IfWinstein and Schmidt's notion of a response drift is correct, one would expect to find that the last subblock had greater ICEI than the first subblock within each block. The analysis did not find a main effect of subblock, F (1,66) =1.2, p> .05; however, there was a significant interaction of subblock and MT goal, F (1,66) =6.4, P< .05. Examination of this interaction revealed that subjects in the I,OOo-ms goal conditions tended to drift very slightly from the first (M = 5~ ms, SE= 4 ms) to the last subblock (M =59 ms, SE =4 ms), whereas, contrary to Wmsllein and Schmidt's suggestion, subjects in the 500-ms goal conditions reduced their ICEI from first to last subblocks. Mean ICEI decreased from 8~ ms (SE= 11 ms) on the firstsubblockto 67 ms (SE= 8ms) on the last subblock.
Retention The right-hand side of Figure 1 shows mean ICEI scores for the 10 groups in the Io-min and 2~y delayed no-KR retention tests. The analysis of these errors revealed main effects for both MT goal, F (I, 110) =24.2, p< .OI,andretentiontest,F(I,110) =~.8,p< .01. These main effects were overshadowed by a significant retention testbyMT goal interaction,F (1, 110) = 8.8, p< .01.
The groups attempting to perform the task in 500 ms demonstrated equivalent performance in the two retention tests.ICEI means were ~7ms (SE= 5 ms) and ~9 ms (SE= 4 ms) for the Io-min and 2~y retention tests. In contrast, the I,OOO-ms target groups exhibited markedly poorer performance in the 2~y retention test (M .. 95 ms, SE = 11 ms) than in the Io-min retention test (M =56 ms, SE= 5 ms), The effect ofKR condition did not approach significance, F < 1. The direction of this response drift for the I,OOo-ms groups on the 2~y retention test can be seen on the right-hand side of Figure 2. All the I,OOO-ms groups produce faster responses on the 2~y retention test than on the Io-min retention test. Analysis revealed a main effect ofretention test, F(I,110) = 16.~, p< .01, and a significant interaction of retention test and MT goal. As Figure 2 suggests the 50o-ms groups remained relatively stable in their bias between the Io-min (M = 6 ms, SE = 6 ms) and the2-day (M= 0.1 ms,SE= 6ms) retention tests, whereas the I,OOo-ms groups' mean CE went from I~ ms (SE= 9 ms) in the Io-min retention test to -25 IDS (SE= 12 ms) in the 2~y retention test. Finally, response variability in the retention tests is illustrated on the right-hand side ofFigure ~. The analysis of these VE scores indicated only a main effect for MT goal, F(I, 110) =81.~, p< .01, with the 50o-ms groups having significantlylowervariability (M = 27ms, SE= 2 ms) than the I,OOo-ms groups (M = 57 ms, SE= ~ ms).
Figure 1.Mean absolute constant error in acquisition and retention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. 350
.. ..
~
-E -......
--
300
CIJ
-- ..... -- -
250
0 ... W
-C
200
:'II... 150
-
100
o
•""
Q)
::J
"0 CIJ
...............
15/1 (1000) 15/1 (SOO) 15/15 (1000)
6
15/15 (500) 1513 (1000)
Ie
....,,
1/1 (1000) 1/1 (500)
-0--
--*,,-
eu
CIJ C 0
•
-
--~-
1513 (500)
BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
~
..0
-(
50
I t'
a
a
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) RaES: September 1992
5
6
10 min
-
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks)
331
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Discussion
subjects to move extremely rapidly. Indeed, it required considerable effort to complete the task in under 500 ms. The fact that an MT of500 ms was close to the minimum time in which the task could be performed also helps explain the differences in VE between the two MT conditions. Subjects had only to realize that there was little chance of erring on the fast side of the goal MT to produce highly consistent responses across trials. The only requirement for subjects in these groups was to move nearly as fast as possible. In retention there were also substantial differences in performance as a result of MT goal, with superior retention accuracy being exhibited by the 50o-ms MT condition. These subjects merely had to remember to move nearly as fast as possible to produce relatively accurate performance. The problem facing the I,OOo-ms MT groups was more complex. These subjects had to remember a speed of movement that was not close to their maximum. This task difficulty resulted in a substantial increase in ICEI on the 2-day retention test. The analysis of CE showed that subjects in the I,OOo-ms condition tended to move faster on the second retention test than on the first retention test. MT clearly played an important role in response variability during the retention tests. Just as in acquisition, subjects in the 50o-ms conditions merely had to retain the strategy ofmoving as rapidly as possible to produce highly consistentresponses across retention tests.
In a recent attempt to replicate and expand on the summaryKRfindingsofSchmidtetal. (1989),Sidawayet al, (1991) failed to find the summary KR effectand found that learning was unaffected by the number of trials in the summary display. Similarly, the present experiment was conducted in an attempt to replicate the findings of Sidaway etal. and to examine whether differences in task MT could explain the inconsistencies in the findings of the two earlier studies. The results ofthis study again call into question the generality of the summary KR effect because subjects who received immediate KR during acquisition clearly did not perform more poorly in retention thaa subjects who received KR in a summary fashion during acquisition. Although thevarious KRconditions exhibited equivalent retention performance, there were significant KR condition differences in acquisition performance. With regard to timing accuracy, groups that received KR after each trial (1/1 and Both KR conditions) acquired the task more rapidly than those groups that saw KR only after each 15-trial acquisition block was completed. Differences in response bias were also evident in acquisition, with the 50o-ms MT groups generally performing with more positive bias and reducing that bias more slowly than the I,ooo-ms MT groups. These findings are not surprising given that the MT goal of500 ms required
Figure 2. Mean constant error in acquisition and retention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. 200 ~
--.-•
..
150
-E ~
0~
100
-W
c ca
I/)
--+--
15/1 (500) 15/15 (1000) 15/15 (500)
II
~
-- -......'......... ~
50
-- ..... -
1513 (1000) 1513 (500) BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
"""'-,~ ..'*------........... ---..........
-- - ..,-----
"
C 0
1/1 (500) 15/1 (1000)
--0--
-- A -- .... -
I /)
1/1 (1000)
....
0
0
·50
+-----r---~-----,r------r----"'T""---_r_---_.,---__,
o
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) 332
5
6
10 min
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks) ROES: September '992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
Along with these obvious differences as a function of MT, the retention tests are notable by the lack of differences between KR conditions. The different schedules of KR during acquisition had almost no effect on ICEI, CE, and VE scores during retention. The absence ofan effect ofKR condition held for both MT goals. Thus, the differences between the findings of Schmidt et al. (1989) and Sidaway et al. (1991) cannot be explained by differences in MT. The guidance hypothesis ofSalmoni etal. (1984) would predict that the 15/15 KR conditions would perform better in retention than the Both and 1/1 KR conditions. Although the 1/1 groups did not perform better than the summary groups, as Sidaway et al. found, they clearly performed no worse than the summary groups. Furthermore, as in the Sidaway et al. experiment, the present experiment also contained a traditional test of KR relative frequency. The Both and 1/1 KR conditions received a KR relative frequency of 100%, whereas the 15/1 KR conditions were given a KR relative frequency of7%. Again, contrary to the guidance hypothesis, no retention differenceswere evidentbetween these groups in either response accuracy or response variability. However, it should be remembered that Wmstein and Schmidt (1990) found a relative frequency of KR effect only when KR was faded across acquisition trials. In their first experiment, in which KR relative frequency was not faded, relative frequencies of 33 and 100% resulted in equivalent performance in retention.
The results of the present experiment provide no support for the summary KR effect reported by Schmidt et al. (1989). Furthermore, they provide only partial support for the importance offrequency ofKR presentation as suggested by Sidaway et al. (1991). Subjects in the 15/15, 15/3, and 15/1 KR conditions all received a KR presentation frequency of7% and exhibited very similar retention performance; however, the Both and 1/1 KR conditions also had very similar retention performance to these 7% conditions and yet their KR presentation frequency was 100%. These results illustrate the resourcefulness of the human learner. Although the groups that received long KR summaries did not show superior performance in retention, as supporters ofthe guidance hypothesiswould predict, these groups did not perform any worse than those groups that received KR after every trial. To highlight this point one need only compare the KR schedules ofthe 15/1 and 1/1 groups. The 15/1 groupreceivedKR on only 6 of the 90 acquisition trials performed and yet produced almost identical retention performance to the 1/1 group that were given 90 KR trials. These findings illustrate the resourcefulness of the human learner, as subjects were able to learn the task undervery meager KR conditions. It is doubtful that the similarity in retention performance, within the MT conditions, was merely the result of the task being extremely easy to learn. As the performance curves in Figure 1 show, the summary
..
Figure 3. Mean varia ble errorinacquisition andretention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. ---0--
-- • ---+--
150
--.-...
~
-E -e
6
-- -- .... -
100
II
''-
w
I~
:c
1511 (1000) 1511 (500) 15115 (1000) 15115 (500) 1513 (1000) 1513 (SOO)
BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
\
.--'~-"'-'1 ,40_-.-
..:~
>
1/1 (500)
\
Q)
~
1/1 (1000)
\
50
\
\......
~\
'",
--oIL ' ....,.' ,~ ...... .......
-_.
. ..
·.==-_•. _~~~_I ------w-=. ---.-.• ....... c.~=.:=. === -=-
2--_:~c---=·
O+----.,-----,----""T'"---""T'"---"""T"---..,.---....,.-----, o
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) ROES: September 1992
5
6
10 min
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks) 333
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powelt andHall
groups did not acquire the task rapidly. Rather, improvement appeared to progress gradually over the 90 trials of acquisition. Clearly, there is still much to be learned about the effect ofsummary KR on motor skill learning.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
References Greenhouse, S. W., Be Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Ps'jchmtutrilw., 24, 95-112. Lavery,].]. (1962). Retention of simple motor skills as a function oft.ype ofknowledge ofresults. CanadianJoumal ofPsychologJ, 16, ~Sl1. Lavery,].]. (1964). The effect of one-trial delay in knowledge ofr~sults on the acquisition and retention ofa tossing skill. AmmcanJoumal ofPsycho/ogJ, 77, 4S'7-44S. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., Be Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical appraisal. PS'J'hological Bulletin, 95, S55-S86. Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Molm controland leamiflg: A blhaviural emphasis (2nd ed.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Schmidt, R. A., Lange, C., Be Young, D. E. (1990). Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning. Human Movemmt sa",", 9, S25-S48.
334
Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S., Be Sp.apiro, D. C. (1989). Summaryknowledge ofresults for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.JfNmalofExpm_ tolPsyclwlogy: Learning, Memory, and Cogni#on, 15, S52-S59. Sidaway,B., Moore, B., Be Schoenfelder-Zohdi, B. (1991). Summary and frequency of KR presentation effects on retention ofa motor skill. Research Q!sarln'ly for Exerciseand spurt, 62, 2'7-S2. Winstein,C.J., Be Schmidt, R.A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge ofresults enhances motor skilllearning.Joumal ofExpmmmtalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 6'7'7-691.
Authors' Notes Portions of these data were first presented at the annual meeting ofthe North American Society for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity in Monterey, California,june 1991. Gratitude is extended to Richard Magill, Gil Reeve, Tim Lee, and Charles Walter for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Address all correspondence concerning this article to Ben Sidaway, Department of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
RaES: September 1992
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time a
a
a
Ben Sidaway , Malcolm Fairweather , John Powell & Greg Hall
a
a
Louisiana State University , USA Published online: 26 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Ben Sidaway , Malcolm Fairweather , John Powell & Greg Hall (1992) The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63:3, 328-334, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10608750 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10608750
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RUNI'C. CllIII*rIy far &ere'" .ad Sport
e 1992 bytheAmerican Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 328·334
The Acquisition and Retention of a Timing Task: Effects of Summary KR and Movement Time
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Ben Sidaway, Malcolm Fairweather, John Powell, and Greg Hall
Key wards: summary knowledge of results, knowledge of results frequency, motor skill retention
T
he recent resurgence of interest in the effect of knowledge ofresults (KR) on motor skill acquisition owes much to the guidance hypothesis of Salmoni, Schmidt, and Walter (1984). After an extensive review of the KR literature Salmoni et al. suggested that, when KR is abundant during the acquisition of a motor skill, it functions to guide performance. However, ifKR is withdrawn during a retention test, performance may suffer as a result of this earlier guidance. In learning environments in which KR is readily available, KR acts as a "crutch" for performance in that it enables accurate performance without requiring subjects to engage in the cognitive processing necessary to support accurate no-KR performance. Following conception of the guidance hypothesis, Schmidt and his coworkers have investigated the summary KRmethodologyfor evidence to supportit (Schmidt, Lange, & Young, 1990; Schmidt, Young, Swinnen, & Shapiro, 1989). Schmidtetal. (1989) had subjects learn a 55O-mstiming task. Four groups differed in the number of trials summarized in the acquisition phase. These groups were compared to subjects who received immediate KR following each trial. In acquisition there was a trend for poorer performance as the number of trials summarized increased, but in a 2-day delayed no-KR retention test there was a significant trend for enhanced performance in the groups that had longer summary lengths in acquisition. These results were taken as support for the guidance hypothesis because longer summary lengths were thought to provide less guidance in acquisition and consequently to enhance retention.
Submitted: October 76, 7997 Revision accepted: March 6, 7992 Ben Sidaway isanassistant professor atLouisiana State University. Malcolm Fairweather, John Powe/~ andGreg Hall are graduate students atthesame institution. 328
In an attempt to discover the underlying process behind the summary KR effect, Sidaway, Moore, and Schoenfelder-Zohdi (1991) manipulated the amount of information in the summary presentation. They reasoned that in Schmidt et al.'s (1989) experiment, summary length was confounded with rate of KR presentation. Although in the Schmidt et al, study all groups received KR for the same number of trials (100% relative frequency), groups with longer summary lengths were given KR less frequently. Sidaway et al. proposed that the number of no-KR trials between KR presentations might be the key to the summary KR effect. To examine this notion, Sidaway et al. followed Schmidt et al.'s (1989) task and procedures for the summary 1 (1/1) and summary 15 (15/15) conditions but added three other conditions. Like the 15/15 condition, subjects in these conditions did not receive any KR during blocks of 15 acquisition trials; however, rather than seeinga graphical representation of all 15 trials, they saw only the last 7 (15/7), the last3 (15/3), or the last 1 (15/1) ofthe trials performed in that block. In this way Sidaway et al. kept the KR presentation frequency constant at 7%, while KR relative frequency was allowed to vary. The results supported the importance ofKR presentation frequency, as no differences were found between any of the 7% frequency of presentation conditions in no-KR retention tests. Learning was unaffected by the amount ofinformation presented in the summary KR display. Unexpectedly, however, Sidaway et al. also found that subjects in the 1/1 condition exhibited IO-min and 2-day retention performance superior to all other conditions. The results for the 1/1 condition are even more puzzlingwhen one considers that the investigators closely followed the task and procedures ofSchmidtetal. (1989). Their replication did, however, differ in one potentially important variable. Sidaway et al. required subjects to complete the linear slide timing task in 750 ms, whereas in Schmidt etal.'s study the goal time was 550 ms. Sidaway et al. chose the 75O-ms goal because theywanted to allow subjects the possibility oferring on the fast side as well as on the slow side. Summary KR might operate differently
ROES: September 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidewey. Feirweether. Powel~ endHell
when ballisticlike movements are made than when movements are performed more slowly, allowing time for concurrent intrinsic feedback to playa role in control. Lavery's (1962, 1964) earlier work on summary KR. which had been taken as support for the guidance hypothesis, also used open-loop tasks. It may be that summary KR enhances retention of rapid tasks because it primarily operates on a subject's recall schema. Schmidt (1988) suggests that very rapid tasks are controlled largely by a recall schema because there is insufficient time for feedback to be used. On the other hand, immediate KR may be most beneficial to learning when a response is sufficiently long to allow use of intrinsic feedback in movement control. These responses are controlled by a recognition schema that stores the sensory consequences of previous responses for comparison purposes. The sensory consequences of a response are short lived, and, so that recognition schema may be updated after each response, immediate KR must be provided. In other words, the refinement of recognition schema can only take place while the sensory consequences ofa response are still in working memory; thus, the effectiveness of summary and immediate KR may depend on the relative importance of recall and recognition schema in controlling the response. The present study was designed to explore whether movement time influences the summary KR effect and therefore can possibly explain the differences between the results of the immediate KR groups ofSchmidt et al, (1989) and Sidaway et al, (1991). Also of interest was replication ofSidaway et al.'s finding that the amount of information in the summary display did not affect leaming. The procedures replicated those of Sidaway et al. except for the target movement times. Subjects were required to complete the linear slide timing task in 500 ms or in 1,000 ms, Based on previous results and the foregoing discussion, it was predicted that the summary KReffectwould be found in the 500-ms condition but not in the 1,000-ms condition. Finally, additional groups were added that received both immediate KR after each trial and a summary KR presentation after each 15 trials. These groups were added to discover if the potentially damaging guidance of immediate KR trials could be counteracted by a summary representation ofthose same trials.
Method The task and procedures closely followed those of Sidawayetal. (1991) apart from the movement time goals set for the different conditions. In all conditions subjects performed the same number of trials in acquisition and also participated in the same IO-min and 2-day delayed no-KR retention tests.
ROES: September '992
Subjects One hundred and twenty (N= 120) right-handed male university students participated in the experiment for extra class credit. All were naive to the purposes ofthe experiment, and none had prior experience with the task. Subjects signed informed consent forms before participating.
Apparatus andTask The apparatus was identical to that used by Sidaway et al. (1991) . For a detailed description of the apparatus the reader is referred to the previously published paper. The apparatus consisted of a low-friction linear slide mounted horizontally on a table top with microswitches positioned at the start and 40 cm along the slide. Both switches were interfaced with an Apple lie microcomputer that contained the millisecond timer. Located beneath and orthogonal to the guiding rods ofthe linear slide were two 5-cm-wide paper strips positioned 15 cm and ~O em to the left ofthe start position. These served as targets for movement reversals. Subjects sat facing the apparatus and grasped the handle of the slide with the right hand. Shortly after a verbal "go" signalwas given by the experimenter, subjects moved the slide left to the ~O-cm target, then right to the 15-cm target, and then left again until the slide passed the switch 40 cm from the start. Subjects were encouraged to follow through past the 4O-cm mark. In 5 of the 10 conditions examined, subjects were instructed to complete the whole movement in a time of 1,000 ms. In the remaining 5 conditions subjects were required to perform the movement in 500 ms. For each trial, only temporal accuracy at the 4O-cm mark was recorded.
Procedures The 120 subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 10 different conditions, 12 subjects per condition. All 10 groups of subjects participated in 6 blocks of 15 trials in acquisition and I block of 25 trials in 10-min and 2-day delayed no-KR retention tests. After each block ofacquisition trials, all groups received 20 s of KR presentation and/or rest. In 6 of the 10 conditions, ~ from each movement time goal, subjects completed each IS-trial acquisition block without any KR. At the end of each block subjects in these conditions received KR on either all 15 of the trials performed (15/15), the last ~ ofthe 15 performed (15/~), or only the last trial of the 15 performed (15/1). Under these schedules, all 6 groups received a KR presentation frequency of7%. Two other groups of subjects, one from each temporal condition, received KR immediately after each acquisition trial (1/1) but did not see a summary of any of their trials following completion of the trial block. The final two
329
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powel'andHall
groups (Both), one from each temporal condition, received both immediate KR following each trial and a summary ofallIS trials performed following completion of each 15 trial acquisition block. The intertrial interval was constant for all groups at approximately 5 s. Temporal accuracy at the 4O-cmmark was recorded by the microcomputer, which graphically displayed this information to the subjects on the screen after each trial and/or after each block of acquisition trials. In each display the subjects were presented with a positive" axis and a positive/negative 'J axis. Trials were presented along the "axis, whereas temporal error from the 500-ms or l,ooO-ms goals was scaled on the 'J axis. Each trial was represented by a small square on the graph in relation to the zeroJ temporal error" axis. In the 1/1 and 15/1 conditions, subjects only saw one KR square on the screen at anyone time. In the summary presentations computer software joined the KR information for each trial by line segments. Following the 90 trials of acquisition all groups rested outside the testing room for 10 min. After this rest all subjects performed 25 trials without receiving KR. An additional25-trial no-KR retention test was also given 2 days later.
Results For each acquisition block of 15 trials, absolute constanterror (ICEI), constant error (CE), and variable error (VE) were calculated. The same performance measures were also calculated for the two delayed retention tests. The acquisition data were analyzed in 2 x 5 x 6 (MT Goal x KR Condition x Blocks) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor. Similarly, the retention data were analyzed in 2 x 5 x 2 (MT Goal x KR Condition x Retention Test) ANOVAs with retention test being a repeated measure. For all F tests the probability level was computed using the Greenhouse-Geisser degrees-of-freedom adjustment (Greenhouse Be Geisser, 1959). The Newman Keuls post hoc procedure was used to analyze any F ratios significant at p < .05.
Acquisition The left-hand side of Figure 1 shows ICEI for the 5 KR conditions, in each MT goal, across the 6 blocks of 15 acquisition trials. The three-way ANOVA revealed a significantmaineffectforKRcondition,F (4,110) =8.0, P< .01. Post hoc analysis indicated that groups that received KR after every trial (i.e., 1/1 and Both KR conditions) had consistently lower ICEI scores than all other groups. There were no significant differences between the 1/1 (M = S5 ms, SE= 5 ms) and the Both KR (M = 26 ms, SE = S ms) conditions. The effect of blocks
330
was also significant, F (5, 550) = S7.7, P< .01, with error decreasing with increasing practice. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between KR condition and blocks, F (20, 550) = 2.9, P< .01. This was caused by the achievement of relatively stable performance in the 1/1 and Both conditions by Block S, whereas the summary groups, which did not receive immediate KR. exhibited a more gradual decline in error scores. The effect of MT goal and all other interactions did not approach significance. With the variation in movement velocity required by the MT goals, it was suspected that differences in response bias might occur. The left-hand side of Figure 2 shows CE for the 10 groups as a function of practice. Post hoc analysis of the main effect of KR condition, F (4, 110) = S.2, P< .05, revealed that only the Both (M = IS ms, SE = S ms) and the 15/1 (M = 68 ms, SE= 10 ms) groups differed significantly. Groups required to complete the task in 1,000 ms had significantly less bias (M = SO ms, SE = 6 ms) than those groups whose goal was 500 ms (M = 54 ms, SE= 6 ms), F (I, 110) = S.9, P< .05. As expected the main effect of blocks was significant, F (5,550) = 15.0,p< .01, with all groups decreasing their bias with practice. Variability in timing performance is shown as a function of practice in Figure S. The main effect of blocks was significant, F (5, 550) = 45.7, P< .01, with all groups showing a decrease in VE with practice. Significant main effectswere also found forKR condition,F (4,110) = S.2, P< .05, and for MT goal, F (I, 110) = 97.6, P< .01. Collapsing across blocks and KR conditions revealed mean VEs of ~ ms (SE =2 ms) and 67 ms (SE =S ms) for the 500 and 1,000 ms MT goals, respectively. Complicating these main effects was an interaction ofKR condition and MTgoal,F(4, 110) = S.4,p< .05, which was caused by the 15/1 and 15/15 conditions exhibiting agreaterincrease in variabilityfrom the 500 to the 1,000 ms conditions than the other KR conditions. One final analysis was conducted on the acquisition data to examine a possible explanation for the relative frequency effect demonstrated by Wmstein and Schmidt (1990). These investigators suggested that when KR is presented infrequently, subjects' responses tend to drift from the target behavior during the strings of no-KR trials. When KRis eventually provided, this drift is readily apparent to subjects and serves to facilitate the learning process. To test for this response drift, each block of 15 acquisition trials was splitinto Ssubblocks of5 trials each. Subjects' means for the firstand lastsubblockwithin each 15 trial acquisition block were then calculated. This analysis was not performed for the 1/1 and the Both KR conditions because KR was provided immediately after each trial in these conditions, and, therefore, no response drift was expected. The analysis also did not include the first 15 trial acquisition block because the first KR presentation was given after completion of this
RDES: September 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
block. A ~x 2 x 2 x 5 (KR Condition x MT Goal x Subblock x Block) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors was performed on the resulting means. IfWinstein and Schmidt's notion of a response drift is correct, one would expect to find that the last subblock had greater ICEI than the first subblock within each block. The analysis did not find a main effect of subblock, F (1,66) =1.2, p> .05; however, there was a significant interaction of subblock and MT goal, F (1,66) =6.4, P< .05. Examination of this interaction revealed that subjects in the I,OOo-ms goal conditions tended to drift very slightly from the first (M = 5~ ms, SE= 4 ms) to the last subblock (M =59 ms, SE =4 ms), whereas, contrary to Wmsllein and Schmidt's suggestion, subjects in the 500-ms goal conditions reduced their ICEI from first to last subblocks. Mean ICEI decreased from 8~ ms (SE= 11 ms) on the firstsubblockto 67 ms (SE= 8ms) on the last subblock.
Retention The right-hand side of Figure 1 shows mean ICEI scores for the 10 groups in the Io-min and 2~y delayed no-KR retention tests. The analysis of these errors revealed main effects for both MT goal, F (I, 110) =24.2, p< .OI,andretentiontest,F(I,110) =~.8,p< .01. These main effects were overshadowed by a significant retention testbyMT goal interaction,F (1, 110) = 8.8, p< .01.
The groups attempting to perform the task in 500 ms demonstrated equivalent performance in the two retention tests.ICEI means were ~7ms (SE= 5 ms) and ~9 ms (SE= 4 ms) for the Io-min and 2~y retention tests. In contrast, the I,OOO-ms target groups exhibited markedly poorer performance in the 2~y retention test (M .. 95 ms, SE = 11 ms) than in the Io-min retention test (M =56 ms, SE= 5 ms), The effect ofKR condition did not approach significance, F < 1. The direction of this response drift for the I,OOo-ms groups on the 2~y retention test can be seen on the right-hand side of Figure 2. All the I,OOO-ms groups produce faster responses on the 2~y retention test than on the Io-min retention test. Analysis revealed a main effect ofretention test, F(I,110) = 16.~, p< .01, and a significant interaction of retention test and MT goal. As Figure 2 suggests the 50o-ms groups remained relatively stable in their bias between the Io-min (M = 6 ms, SE = 6 ms) and the2-day (M= 0.1 ms,SE= 6ms) retention tests, whereas the I,OOo-ms groups' mean CE went from I~ ms (SE= 9 ms) in the Io-min retention test to -25 IDS (SE= 12 ms) in the 2~y retention test. Finally, response variability in the retention tests is illustrated on the right-hand side ofFigure ~. The analysis of these VE scores indicated only a main effect for MT goal, F(I, 110) =81.~, p< .01, with the 50o-ms groups having significantlylowervariability (M = 27ms, SE= 2 ms) than the I,OOo-ms groups (M = 57 ms, SE= ~ ms).
Figure 1.Mean absolute constant error in acquisition and retention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. 350
.. ..
~
-E -......
--
300
CIJ
-- ..... -- -
250
0 ... W
-C
200
:'II... 150
-
100
o
•""
Q)
::J
"0 CIJ
...............
15/1 (1000) 15/1 (SOO) 15/15 (1000)
6
15/15 (500) 1513 (1000)
Ie
....,,
1/1 (1000) 1/1 (500)
-0--
--*,,-
eu
CIJ C 0
•
-
--~-
1513 (500)
BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
~
..0
-(
50
I t'
a
a
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) RaES: September 1992
5
6
10 min
-
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks)
331
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Discussion
subjects to move extremely rapidly. Indeed, it required considerable effort to complete the task in under 500 ms. The fact that an MT of500 ms was close to the minimum time in which the task could be performed also helps explain the differences in VE between the two MT conditions. Subjects had only to realize that there was little chance of erring on the fast side of the goal MT to produce highly consistent responses across trials. The only requirement for subjects in these groups was to move nearly as fast as possible. In retention there were also substantial differences in performance as a result of MT goal, with superior retention accuracy being exhibited by the 50o-ms MT condition. These subjects merely had to remember to move nearly as fast as possible to produce relatively accurate performance. The problem facing the I,OOo-ms MT groups was more complex. These subjects had to remember a speed of movement that was not close to their maximum. This task difficulty resulted in a substantial increase in ICEI on the 2-day retention test. The analysis of CE showed that subjects in the I,OOo-ms condition tended to move faster on the second retention test than on the first retention test. MT clearly played an important role in response variability during the retention tests. Just as in acquisition, subjects in the 50o-ms conditions merely had to retain the strategy ofmoving as rapidly as possible to produce highly consistentresponses across retention tests.
In a recent attempt to replicate and expand on the summaryKRfindingsofSchmidtetal. (1989),Sidawayet al, (1991) failed to find the summary KR effectand found that learning was unaffected by the number of trials in the summary display. Similarly, the present experiment was conducted in an attempt to replicate the findings of Sidaway etal. and to examine whether differences in task MT could explain the inconsistencies in the findings of the two earlier studies. The results ofthis study again call into question the generality of the summary KR effect because subjects who received immediate KR during acquisition clearly did not perform more poorly in retention thaa subjects who received KR in a summary fashion during acquisition. Although thevarious KRconditions exhibited equivalent retention performance, there were significant KR condition differences in acquisition performance. With regard to timing accuracy, groups that received KR after each trial (1/1 and Both KR conditions) acquired the task more rapidly than those groups that saw KR only after each 15-trial acquisition block was completed. Differences in response bias were also evident in acquisition, with the 50o-ms MT groups generally performing with more positive bias and reducing that bias more slowly than the I,ooo-ms MT groups. These findings are not surprising given that the MT goal of500 ms required
Figure 2. Mean constant error in acquisition and retention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. 200 ~
--.-•
..
150
-E ~
0~
100
-W
c ca
I/)
--+--
15/1 (500) 15/15 (1000) 15/15 (500)
II
~
-- -......'......... ~
50
-- ..... -
1513 (1000) 1513 (500) BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
"""'-,~ ..'*------........... ---..........
-- - ..,-----
"
C 0
1/1 (500) 15/1 (1000)
--0--
-- A -- .... -
I /)
1/1 (1000)
....
0
0
·50
+-----r---~-----,r------r----"'T""---_r_---_.,---__,
o
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) 332
5
6
10 min
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks) ROES: September '992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powell. andHall
Along with these obvious differences as a function of MT, the retention tests are notable by the lack of differences between KR conditions. The different schedules of KR during acquisition had almost no effect on ICEI, CE, and VE scores during retention. The absence ofan effect ofKR condition held for both MT goals. Thus, the differences between the findings of Schmidt et al. (1989) and Sidaway et al. (1991) cannot be explained by differences in MT. The guidance hypothesis ofSalmoni etal. (1984) would predict that the 15/15 KR conditions would perform better in retention than the Both and 1/1 KR conditions. Although the 1/1 groups did not perform better than the summary groups, as Sidaway et al. found, they clearly performed no worse than the summary groups. Furthermore, as in the Sidaway et al. experiment, the present experiment also contained a traditional test of KR relative frequency. The Both and 1/1 KR conditions received a KR relative frequency of 100%, whereas the 15/1 KR conditions were given a KR relative frequency of7%. Again, contrary to the guidance hypothesis, no retention differenceswere evidentbetween these groups in either response accuracy or response variability. However, it should be remembered that Wmstein and Schmidt (1990) found a relative frequency of KR effect only when KR was faded across acquisition trials. In their first experiment, in which KR relative frequency was not faded, relative frequencies of 33 and 100% resulted in equivalent performance in retention.
The results of the present experiment provide no support for the summary KR effect reported by Schmidt et al. (1989). Furthermore, they provide only partial support for the importance offrequency ofKR presentation as suggested by Sidaway et al. (1991). Subjects in the 15/15, 15/3, and 15/1 KR conditions all received a KR presentation frequency of7% and exhibited very similar retention performance; however, the Both and 1/1 KR conditions also had very similar retention performance to these 7% conditions and yet their KR presentation frequency was 100%. These results illustrate the resourcefulness of the human learner. Although the groups that received long KR summaries did not show superior performance in retention, as supporters ofthe guidance hypothesiswould predict, these groups did not perform any worse than those groups that received KR after every trial. To highlight this point one need only compare the KR schedules ofthe 15/1 and 1/1 groups. The 15/1 groupreceivedKR on only 6 of the 90 acquisition trials performed and yet produced almost identical retention performance to the 1/1 group that were given 90 KR trials. These findings illustrate the resourcefulness of the human learner, as subjects were able to learn the task undervery meager KR conditions. It is doubtful that the similarity in retention performance, within the MT conditions, was merely the result of the task being extremely easy to learn. As the performance curves in Figure 1 show, the summary
..
Figure 3. Mean varia ble errorinacquisition andretention as a function ofknowledge ofresults and movement time. ---0--
-- • ---+--
150
--.-...
~
-E -e
6
-- -- .... -
100
II
''-
w
I~
:c
1511 (1000) 1511 (500) 15115 (1000) 15115 (500) 1513 (1000) 1513 (SOO)
BOTH (1000) BOTH (500)
\
.--'~-"'-'1 ,40_-.-
..:~
>
1/1 (500)
\
Q)
~
1/1 (1000)
\
50
\
\......
~\
'",
--oIL ' ....,.' ,~ ...... .......
-_.
. ..
·.==-_•. _~~~_I ------w-=. ---.-.• ....... c.~=.:=. === -=-
2--_:~c---=·
O+----.,-----,----""T'"---""T'"---"""T"---..,.---....,.-----, o
2
3
4
Acquisition (15-trial blocks) ROES: September 1992
5
6
10 min
2 day
Retention (25-trial blocks) 333
Sidaway, Fairweather, Powelt andHall
groups did not acquire the task rapidly. Rather, improvement appeared to progress gradually over the 90 trials of acquisition. Clearly, there is still much to be learned about the effect ofsummary KR on motor skill learning.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:06 24 August 2014
References Greenhouse, S. W., Be Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Ps'jchmtutrilw., 24, 95-112. Lavery,].]. (1962). Retention of simple motor skills as a function oft.ype ofknowledge ofresults. CanadianJoumal ofPsychologJ, 16, ~Sl1. Lavery,].]. (1964). The effect of one-trial delay in knowledge ofr~sults on the acquisition and retention ofa tossing skill. AmmcanJoumal ofPsycho/ogJ, 77, 4S'7-44S. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., Be Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical appraisal. PS'J'hological Bulletin, 95, S55-S86. Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Molm controland leamiflg: A blhaviural emphasis (2nd ed.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Schmidt, R. A., Lange, C., Be Young, D. E. (1990). Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning. Human Movemmt sa",", 9, S25-S48.
334
Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S., Be Sp.apiro, D. C. (1989). Summaryknowledge ofresults for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.JfNmalofExpm_ tolPsyclwlogy: Learning, Memory, and Cogni#on, 15, S52-S59. Sidaway,B., Moore, B., Be Schoenfelder-Zohdi, B. (1991). Summary and frequency of KR presentation effects on retention ofa motor skill. Research Q!sarln'ly for Exerciseand spurt, 62, 2'7-S2. Winstein,C.J., Be Schmidt, R.A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge ofresults enhances motor skilllearning.Joumal ofExpmmmtalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 6'7'7-691.
Authors' Notes Portions of these data were first presented at the annual meeting ofthe North American Society for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity in Monterey, California,june 1991. Gratitude is extended to Richard Magill, Gil Reeve, Tim Lee, and Charles Walter for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Address all correspondence concerning this article to Ben Sidaway, Department of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
RaES: September 1992
