This study evaluated the retention of a cycling kinetic pattern using two different feedback schedules and evaluated the potential for feedback dependency in a continuous-task learning environment. Eighteen inexperienced cyclists rode a racing bicycle mounted to a fixed-fork Velodyne Trainer, with pedal forces monitored by dual piezoelectric transducers. Subjects received right-pedal shear force feedback and a criterion pattern emphasizing “effective” shear. Concurrent feedback (CFB) subjects received concurrent feedback 140 ms after the completion of every other revolution, while summary feedback (SFB) subjects received averaged feedback between trials. All subjects performed 10 retention trials without feedback 1 week later. Both groups improved significantly during practice, and performance decay in retention was negligible. Group differences during all phases were not significant. High CFB group proficiency in retention indicated that the detrimental aspects of frequent feedback were not significant. High SFB proficiency in retention suggests that large changes in kinetic patterning are achievable with relatively few feedback presentations.
Jeffrey P. Broker, Robert J. Gregor and Richard A. Schmidt
Marlene Luis and Luc Tremblay
We aimed to determine if visual feedback use during aerial skills is more efficient at low angular head velocity (AHV; i.e., <350 deg/s) than at high AHV. Twelve experienced female acrobats performed 20 back tuck somersaults under four experimental conditions: full-vision (FV), vision at AHV below 350 deg/s (VBelow), vision at AHV above 350 deg/s (VAbove), and no-vision (NV). AHV was calculated in real time, and liquid crystal goggles were used to manipulate vision. Two gymnastics judges scored landing stability using a four-point scale. All vision conditions that allowed some vision yielded significantly better landing scores than in the NV condition. Furthermore, a nonparametric test revealed that VBelow yielded a better performance ranking than the FV condition. We conclude that visual feedback during a back tuck somersault is used for landing stability at all angular head velocities, but optimal feedback use occurs when there is retinal stability.
Kathryn Mills, Aula Idris, Thu-An Pham, John Porte, Mark Wiggins and Manolya Kavakli
(188/100,000 participants). 11 The lack of timely and accurate feedback potentially contributes to the poor implementation of these programs. Multiple studies support the importance of providing timely feedback during neuromuscular training programs, 12 , 13 as it may enhance motor skill development
Amelia M. Lee, Nyit C. Keh and Richard A. Magill
Feedback is considered an important teaching function and researchers in sport pedagogy have shown interest in verifying this importance to achievement in physical education. This review paper examines the feedback research in physical education and discusses factors which might help explain some inconsistencies. The essential role of teacher feedback in motor-skill learning is questioned.
Gavin P. Lawrence, Michael A. Khan, Stuart Mourton and Pierre-Michel Bernier
The objective of the current study was to determine whether the reliance on visual feedback that develops with practice is to due utilizing vision to adjust trajectories during movement execution (i.e., online) and/or to enhance the programming of subsequent trials (i.e., offline). Participants performed a directional aiming task with either vision during the movement, dynamic feedback of the trajectory of the movement or the movement endpoint. The full vision condition was more accurate during practice than the other feedback conditions but suffered a greater decrement in performance when feedback was removed. In addition, the reliance on trajectory feedback was greater compared with the endpoint feedback. It appears that the reliance on visual feedback that develops with practice was due to both online and offline processing.
Kimmery Migel and Erik Wikstrom
to modify the position of the foot during stance phase of walking. For example, the use of auditory 18 and visual feedback 19 have created a medial shift in the stance phase plantar center of pressure during training. While center of pressure is not a direct measure of foot position, it is a
Kirrie J. Ballard, Heather D. Smith, Divija Paramatmuni, Patricia McCabe, Deborah G. Theodoros and Bruce E. Murdoch
Knowledge of Performance (KP) feedback, such as biofeedback or kinematic feedback, is used to provide information on the nature and quality of movement responses for the purpose of guiding active learning or rehabilitation of motor skills. It has been proposed that KP feedback may interfere with long-term learning when provided throughout training. Here, twelve healthy English-speaking adults were trained to produce a trilled Russian [r] in words with KP kinematic feedback using electropalatography (EPG) and without KP (noKP). Five one-hour training sessions were provided over one week with testing pretraining and one day and one week posttraining. No group differences were found at pretraining or one day post training for production accuracy. A group by time interaction supported the hypothesis that providing kinematic feedback continually during skill acquisition interferes with retention.
G. Linda Rikard
The purpose was to describe the differences in practice success of high- and low-skilled students to varied instructional tasks and feedback of two physical education teachers. Four to five lessons on striking with implements were presented, and feedback was consistently individual and specific. Subjects were four high-skilled and four low-skilled fourth graders randomly selected from two intact physical education classes. The teacher variable studied was the amount and kind of teacher feedback given to subjects during practice. Student variables included: (a) the success frequencies of practice in response to instructional tasks, and (b) practice success frequencies achieved immediately after receiving teacher feedback. Results showed that successful task engagement was 70% for low-skilled students and 86% for high-skilled students in response to instructional tasks. After receiving teacher feedback, low-skilled students increased their practice success to 75% (5% increase); high-skilled students declined to 84% (2% decrease).
Gabriel Andrade Paz, Lohanne Almeida, Larissa Ruiz, Sabrina Casseres, Giovanna Xavier, João Lucas, Haroldo Gualter Santana, Humberto Miranda, Scott Bonnette and Jeffrey Willardson
, feedback is a fundamental tool for the acquisition and performance of motor skills and may be the most efficient form of training available. Indeed, the use of feedback has been shown to be highly effective in altering maladaptive biomechanical patterns and in optimizing lower-limb movements. 7 – 11 For
Matthew Heath, Kristina Neely and Olav Krigolson
The authors manipulated the availability of monocular and binocular vision during the constituent planning and control stages of a goal-directed reaching task. Furthermore, trials were completed with or without online limb vision to determine whether monocular- or binocular-derived ego-motion cues influence the integration of visual feedback for online limb corrections. Results showed that the manipulation of visual cues during movement planning did not influence planning times or overall kinematics. During movement execution, however, binocular reaches—and particularly those completed with online limb vision—demonstrated heightened endpoint accuracy and stability, a finding directly linked to the adoption of a feedback-based mode of reaching control (i.e., online control). In contrast, reaches performed with online monocular vision produced increased endpoint error and instability and demonstrated reduced evidence of feedback-based corrections (i.e., offline control). Based on these results, the authors propose that the combination of static (i.e., target location) and dynamic (i.e., the moving limb) binocular cues serve to specifically optimize online reaching control. Moreover, results provide new evidence that differences in the kinematic and endpoint parameters of binocular and monocular reaches reflect differences in the extent to which the aforementioned engage in online and offline modes of movement control.