The effect of task structure, practice schedule, and model type on the learning of relative and absolute timing by physical and observational practice (original) (raw)

Abstract

Three experiments compared learning of relative and absolute timing of a sequential key-pressing task by physical and observational practice. Experiment 1 compared a task with a complex internal structure (goal proportions of 22.2, 44.4, 33.4 on the three movement segments) to one with a simpler structure (goal proportions of 33.3, 33.3, 33.4). Observers only learned the relative timing as well as physical practicers when the internal structure was simple, but learned the absolute timing in both conditions. Experiment 2 compared variable (700, 900, and 1100 ms overall time) with constant practice (900 ms overall time). Observers of constant practice models learned the relative timing better than no-practice control participants, but not as well as the models, while observers of variable practice models learned the relative timing no better than the control group. Observers in both practice conditions were able to produce the absolute timing as well as those who physically practiced. In Experiment 3 observers of an expert model were able to produce the relative timing as well as those who physically practiced the skill, while those who observed iv learning models were not. All observers and the physical practice participants were able to produce the overall duration as well as the expert model. The results of these three experiments support earlier findings that increasing stability during practice promotes better learning of relative timing, but that absolute timing can be learned under less-stable conditions (Lai, Shea, Wulf, & Wright, 2000b). These findings also have important implications on the limitations of Scully and Newells' (1985) prediction that relative timing, but not absolute timing, could be learned by observation. Experiments 1-3 along with earlier findings (Black & Wright, 2000) have consistently found that absolute timing could be learned by observers even as the nature of the task, practice schedule, and model are manipulated. Furthermore, the results suggest a limitation to the effectiveness of learning models (Adams, 1986; McCullagh & Caird, 1990). v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation for the outstanding assistance and friendship from the members of my committee that made my experiences at Texas A&M so beneficial. In particular I would like to thank David Wright and Charles Shea for the opportunity to collaborate on research and for all that I learned from them. I would also like to thank Dr. John Buchanan and Dr. Jack Nation for serving on my committee and for the important information that I gained from their classes and seminars.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (65)

  1. Adams, J.A. (1986). Use of the model's knowledge of results to increase the observer's performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12, 89-98.
  2. Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41-74.
  3. Bandura, A. (1969) Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  5. Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  6. Bingham, G.P., Schmidt, R.C., & Zaal, F.T.J.M. (1999). Visual perception of relative phasing of human limb movements. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 246-258.
  7. Black, C.B., & Wright, D.L. (2000). Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 331-339.
  8. Blandin, Y., Lhuisset, L., & Proteau, L. (1999). Cognitive processes underlying observational learning of motor skills. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 957-979.
  9. Carroll, W.R., & Bandura, A. (1982). The role of visual monitoring in observational learning of action patterns: Making the unobservable observable. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 153-167.
  10. Carroll, W.R., & Bandura, A. (1987). Translating cognition into action: The role of visual guidance in observational learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19, 385-398.
  11. Carroll, W.R., & Bandura, A. (1990). Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 85-97.
  12. Darden, G.F. (1997). Demonstrating motor skills: Rethinking that expert demonstration. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68, 31-35.
  13. Doody, S.G., Bird, A.M., & Ross, D. (1985). The effect of auditory and visual models on acquisition of a timing skill. Human Movement Science, 47, 271-281.
  14. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  15. Green, T.D., & Flowers, J.H. (1991). Implicit versus explicit processes in a probabilistic, continuous, fine-motor catching task, Journal of Motor Behavior, 23, 293-300.
  16. Hebert, E.P., & Landin, D. (1994). Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback in tennis skill acquisition.. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 250-257.
  17. Hodges, N.J., & Franks, I.M. (2000). Attention focusing instructions and coordination bias: Implications for learning a novel bimanual task. Human Movement Science, 19, 843-867.
  18. Hodges, N.J., Chua, R., & Franks, I.M. (2003). The role of video in facilitating perception and action of a novel coordination movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 247-260.
  19. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 379-393.
  20. Johansson, G. (1976). Spatio-temporal differentiation and integration in visual motion perception. Psychological Research, 38, 379-393.
  21. Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. Lai, Q., & Shea, C.H. (1998). Generalized motor program and parameter learning: KR frequency and practice variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 51-59.
  23. Lai, Q., Shea, C.H., Bruechert, L., & Little, M. (2002). Auditory model enhances relative-timing learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 299-307.
  24. Lai, Q., Shea, C.H., & Little, M. (2000a). Effects of modeled auditory information on a sequential timing task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 349-356.
  25. Lai, Q., Shea, C.H., Wulf, G., & Wright, D.L. (2000b). Optimizing generalized motor program and parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 10-24.
  26. Lee, T.D., Wishart, L.R., & Cunningham, S., & Carnahan, H. (1997). Model timing information during random practice eliminates the contextual interference effect. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 100-105.
  27. Magill, R.A. (1993). Modeling and verbal feedback influences on skill learning. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 358-369.
  28. Magill, R. A., & Schoenfelder-Zohdi, B. (1996). A visual model and knowledge of performance as sources of information for learning a rhythmic gymnastics skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 7-22.
  29. Martens, R. (1990). Successful coaching, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  30. McCullagh, P. (1993). Modeling: Learning, developmental, and social psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 106-126). New York: Macmillan.
  31. McCullagh, P., & Caird, J.K. (1990). Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18, 107-116.
  32. McCullagh, P., & Meyer, K.N. (1997). Learning versus correct models: Influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 344-350.
  33. McCullagh, P. & Weiss, M.R. (2001). Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and psychological responses. In Singer, R.N., Hausenblas, H.A., & Janelle, C.M. (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 205-238). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  34. McCullagh, P., Weiss, M.R., & Ross, D. (1989). Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In K.B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise and sport science reviews (pp. 475-513). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  35. Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
  36. Pollock, B.J., & Lee, T.D. (1992). Effects of the model's skill level on observational motor learning, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 25-29.
  37. Roth, K. (1988). Investigations on the basis of the generalized motor programme hypothesis. In O.J. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behaviour: The motor-action controversy (pp. 261-288). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  38. Rothstein, A.L., & Arnold, R.K. (1976). Bridging the gap: Application of research on videotape feedback and bowling. Motor Skills: Theory into Practice, 1, 35-62.
  39. Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1981). Visual perception of lifted weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 733-740.
  40. Ryan, E.D. & Simmons, J. (1983) What is learned in mental practice of motor skills: A test of the cognitive-motor hypothesis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 419-426.
  41. Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning, Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
  42. Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  43. Scully, D. M., & Newell, K.M. (1985). Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills: Toward a visual perception perspective. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 11, 169-186.
  44. Shea, C.H., Lai, Q., Wright, D.L., Immink, M. & Black, C.B. (2001). Consistent and variable practice conditions: Effects on relative and absolute timing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 139-152.
  45. Shea, C.H., Wulf, G., Park, J.-H., & Gaunt, B. (2001). Effects of an auditory model on the learning of relative and absolute timing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 127- 138.
  46. Shea, C.H., Wulf, G., Whitacre, C., & Park, J-H. (2001). Surfing the implicit wave. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 841-863.
  47. Sheffield, F.N. (1961). Theoretical considerations in the learning of complex sequential tasks from demonstrations and practice. In A.A. Lumsdaine (Ed.) Student response in programmed instruction (pp. 13-32). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  48. Vogt, S. (1995). On relations between perceiving, imagining and performing in the learning of cyclical movement sequences. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 191- 216.
  49. Vogt, S. (1996). Imagery and perception-action mediation in imitative actions, Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 79-86.
  50. Weiss, M.R., & Klint, K.A. (1987). "Show and tell" in the gymnasium: An investigation of developmental differences in modeling and verbal rehearsal of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 234-241.
  51. Whiting, H.T.A. (1988). Imitation and the learning of complex cyclical actions. In O.G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), "The" motor-action controversy (pp. 381-401). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  52. Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. & Weiss, M. R. (1992). Modeling effects on children's form kinematics, performance outcome, and cognitive recognition of a sport skill: An integrated perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 67-75.
  53. Williams, A.M., Davids, K., & Williams, J.G. (1999). Visual perception and action in Sport. London: E. & F.N. Spon.
  54. Williams, J.G. (1988) Perception of a throwing action from point-light demonstrations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 273-274.
  55. Williams, J.G. (1989) Visual demonstration and movement production: Effects of timing variation of a model's actions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 891-896.
  56. Williams, J.G. (1993). Motoric modeling: Theory and research. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 24, 237-270.
  57. Willingham, D.B. (1998). A neurophysiological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558-584.
  58. Wright, D.L., Black, C.B., Park, J.H. & Shea, C.H. (2001). Planning and executing simple movements: Contributions of relative-time and overall-duration specification. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 273-285.
  59. Wright, D. L. & Shea, C. H. (1994). Cognition and motor skill acquisition: Contextual dependencies. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Cognitive assessment: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp 89-106). New York: Plenum Press.
  60. Wright, D.L., & Shea, C.H., (2001). Manipulating generalized motor program difficulty during blocked and random practice does not affect parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 32-38.
  61. Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R.A. (1997). Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 987- 1006.
  62. Wulf, G., Lee, T.D., & Schmidt, R.A. (1994) Reducing knowledge of results about relative versus absolute timing: Differential effects of learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 362-369.
  63. Wulf, G., Schmidt, R.A., & Deubel, H. (1993) Reduced frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1134-1150.
  64. Zaal, F.T.J.M., Bingham, G.P., & Schmidt, R.C. (2000). Visual perception of mean relative phase and phase variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1209-1220.
  65. Zanone, P.-G., & Kelso, J.A.S. (1997). Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: Collective and component levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1454-1480.