What category of augmented feedback gives information about the outcome of an attempt to perform a skill?

Researchers have explored another area of motor learning, the role of augmented feedback in skill acquisition. When individuals move, they receive sensory feedback from the various receptors in their bodies (see chapter 13 for a more complete discussion of the development of sensation). This feedback, coming as a result of movement, is termed intrinsic because it comes from the body's internal sensory receptors (Schmidt & Lee, 2014). For example, when a softball player throws a ball, cutaneous receptors provide information about the texture of the ball, proprioceptors indicate muscle length and tension of the throwing arm, and visual receptors provide visual information regarding the trajectory and end position of the ball. In addition to this naturally occurring feedback, other performance-related feedback can come from external sources. This is called extrinsic, or augmented, feedback. A simple example is a coach giving the softball player information about the position of her arm during the backswing when she throws the ball. The term augmented means the feedback comes from an external, or supplementary, source. In other words, augmented feedback enriches naturally occurring intrinsic feedback, perhaps to aid the performance of motor skills. The coach's feedback to the softball player provides extra information about her arm that she may not have been able to detect on her own, and the result could be a more forceful, accurate throw.

Now consider a softball pitcher who is practicing her fastball pitch. Her coach can provide augmented feedback about the outcome of the pitch (“Your pitch was low and outside”) or about her technique during the pitch (“You released the ball too early”). Each of these represents a different type of augmented feedback. Within the field of motor learning, these two types of augmented feedback are named knowledge of results (KR) and knowledge of performance (KP).

An example of KR might be that a softball pitcher wants to pitch a strike (task goal) but misses, and her coach describes her pitch as low and outside (information about performance in relation to goal). KR can also be related to success or failure in reaching a target goal, such as an umpire yelling, “Strike!” when the pitch is within the strike zone. There are clinical applications for KR as well. A physical therapist may provide KR such as walking speed or force output to a stroke patient trying to improve his gait. The key characteristic of KR is that it provides information about performance outcome in relation to the task goal; KR does not provide information about the actual motor pattern produced by the mover.

The type of augmented feedback that provides information about the movement pattern (i.e., characteristics of how the person moved while performing a skill) is KP (Magill & Anderson, 2017; Schmidt & Lee, 2014). In our previous example of a softball pitcher, when the coach tells the pitcher that she “released the ball too early,” the coach has provided KP to the player. KP provides information about the kinematics or movement pattern but does not provide information about the success or failure (i.e., outcome) of the movement itself.

What type of feedback is best? An important consideration for anyone who wishes to provide augmented feedback for learners is this: Which type provides for more efficient and effective motor learning? First, both types of feedback work. Various studies have shown that KR is effective for motor learning (e.g., Liu & Wrisberg, 1997; Masters, Maxwell, & Eves, 2009; Sharma, Chevidikunnan, Khan, & Gaowgzeh, 2016). Other studies have found KP effective (e.g., Zubiuar, Oña, & Delgado, 1999). But what if the two types of feedback are compared with each other? Studies in the 1990s suggested that KP was better at facilitating motor skill acquisition. In their 1992 study examining throwing with the nondominant arm, Kernodle and Carlton (1992) found that providing verbal information about technique resulted in greater throwing distance than providing KR about throwing distance. These were also the findings of Zubiaur et al. (1999), who examined the differences in volleyball serving between groups receiving KP (information about technique) and KR (outcome of serve). In a more recent study, Sharma et al. (2016) compared throwing performance (distance) in groups of adults who were given either KR or KP during 4 weeks of practice. Both groups significantly improved their throwing distance. However, the KP group outperformed the KR group, showing greater improvement in distance thrown over the course of practice. In sum, it appears that although both types of augmented feedback enhance motor learning, KP may be more influential than KR.

KEY POINT Both KR and KP can benefit learners of a motor skill, but KP may be somewhat better, especially during the skill acquisition stage.

Given that augmented feedback enhances learning, how much feedback should be given? The literature related to adult motor learning is fairly unequivocal on this point: More augmented feedback is not necessarily better, and reducing the amount of feedback can, in fact, improve motor learning (e.g., Anderson, Magill, Sekiya, & Ryan, 2005; Winstein & Schmidt, 1990; Wulf & Schmidt, 1989). Is the same true for children?

• Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Barros, J. A. C., Yantha, Z., Carter, M. J., Hussein, J., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2019). Examining the impact of error estimation on the effects of self-controlled feedback. Human Movement Science, 63, 182–198.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bauer, J., Gartmeier, M., & Harteis, C. (2012). Human fallibility and learning from errors at work. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 155–169). Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Bauer, J., & Harteis, C. (2012). The ambiguity of errors for work and learning: Introduction to the volume. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 1–14). Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• 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 Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–144. //doi.org/10.1037/h0040262

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping: Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominid behavior (pp. 53–72). McDonald Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Bril, B., Smaers, J., Steele, J., Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Dietrich, G., Biryukova, E., Hirata, S., & Roux, V. (2012). Functional mastery of percussive technology in nut-cracking and stone-flaking actions: Experimental comparison and implications for the evaluation of the human brain. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society: Biology, 367, 59–74. //doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0147

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bril, B. (2015). Learning to use tools: A functional approach to action. In L. Fillietaz & S. Billet (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work: Conceptions, traditions and practices (pp. 95–118). Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: A replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chen, D., Hendrick, J. L., & Lidor, R. (2002). Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: The use of self-regulated feedback information. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 43(1), 69–86.

  Google Scholar 

• Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408–415. //doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609040

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42–48. //doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Department of Training and Workforce Development. (2008). Basic manual metal arc welding. Accessed 2019/7/28 Retrieved from //www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/teachingproducts/ENG722_CCBY.PDF

• Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks and Cole.

  Google Scholar 

• Grand, K. F., Bruzi, A. T., Dyke, F. B., Godwin, M. M., Leiker, A. M., Thompson, A. G., Buchanan, T. L., & Miller, M. W. (2015). Why self-controlled feedback enhances motor learning: Answers from electroencephalography and indices of motivation. Human Movement Science, 43, 23–32. //doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.013

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Guadagnoli, M. A., & Kohl, R. M. (2001). Knowledge of results for motor learning: Relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 217–224.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Harteis, C., Bauer, J., & Heid, H. (2012). Research on human fallibility and learning from errors at work: Challenges for theory, research, and practice. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 255–265). Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Hogan, J. C., & Yanowitz, B. A. (1978). The role of verbal estimates of movement error in ballistic skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 10, 133–138.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). The effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59–69.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kent, M. (2006). The Oxford dictionary of sports science and medicine (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Khodadost, H., Zareian, E., Arani, H. K., Nosh-abadi, R. N., & Mashreghi, R. A. (2015). Effect of two types of feedback and error estimation on error detection capability in continuous tracking task. Biological Forum - an International Journal, 7(1), 198–204.

  Google Scholar 

• Lazaro, R. T., Reina-Guerra, S. G., & Quiben, M. (2013). Umphred’s neurological rehabilitation (7th ed.). Elsevier.

  Google Scholar 

• Liu, J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (1997). The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(2), 145–151.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback during skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314–327. //doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484129

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Magill, R. A. (2001). Augmented feedback in motor skill acquisition. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 86–114). Wiley.

  Google Scholar 

• Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2017). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• Mononen, K. (2007). The effects of augmented feedback on motor skill learning in shooting: A feedback training intervention among inexperienced rifle shooters. University of Jyväskylä.

  Google Scholar 

• Reed, E. S. (1993). The intention to use a specific affordance: A conceptual framework for psychology. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 45–76). Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

  Google Scholar 

• Safir, O., Dubrowski, A., Hui, Y., Backstein, D., & Carnahan, H. (2010). Self-directed practice scheduling is equivalent to instructor guided practice when learning a complex surgical skill. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 792–796. //doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.105

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 9(5), 355–386.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Phycological Review, 82(4), 225–260.

• Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning principles for physical therapy. In M. Lister (Ed.), Contemporary management of motor control problems: Proceedings of the II STEP conference (pp. 49–64). Foundation for Physical Therapy.

  Google Scholar 

• Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366–375.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioural emphasis. Human Kinetics.

  Google Scholar 

• Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Motor control and learning (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.

  Google Scholar 

• Sharma, D. A., Chevidikunnan, M. F., Khan, F. R., & Gaowgzeh, R. A. (2016). Effectiveness of knowledge of result and knowledge of performance in the learning of a skilled motor activity by healthy young adults. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 28(5), 1482–1486. //doi.org/10.1589/jpts.28.1482

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Swinnen, S. P. (1990). Interpolated activities during the knowledge-of-results delay and post-knowledge-of-results interval: Effects on performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 692–705. //doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.692

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Swinnen, S. P., 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. //doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.706

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wulf, G. (2012). Motor Schema. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer. //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_870

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185–211. //doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44, 75–84. //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x

  Article  Google Scholar 

Page 2

From: Effects of Augmented Feedback with Error Self-estimates on Vocational High School Students’ Motor Skill Learning

Group Pre-test Practice phasea Post-test Delayed-test (1 week later)

Experimental	O	X1 (O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7, O8, O9)	O	O
Control	O	X2 (O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7, O8, O9)	O	O

1. aAugmented feedback provided on the 1st,4th and 7th trials during practice for both groups; at these three points, the experimental group additionally self-estimated their errors after receiving the augmented feedback, while the control group did not