4.2 Article

Self-controlled concurrent feedback and the education of attention towards perceptual invariants

期刊

HUMAN MOVEMENT SCIENCE
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 450-467

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2008.12.004

关键词

Perceptual-motor learning; Self-controlled feedback; Concurrent learning; Direct perception; Education of attention; Calibration

资金

  1. Delegation Genrale pour l'Armement (DGA)
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [HUM2006-11603-C02-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigates the effects of different types of concurrent feedback on the acquisition of perceptual-motor skills. Twenty participants walked through virtual corridors in which rhythmically opening and closing sliding doors were placed. The participants aimed to adjust their walking speed so as to cross the doors when the doors were close to their maximal aperture width. The highest level of performance was achieved by learners who practiced the task with unambiguous self-controlled concurrent feedback, which is to say, by learners who could request that feedback at wish. Practice with imposed rather than self-controlled feedback and practice without concurrent feedback were shown to be less effective. Finally, the way in which the self-controlled concurrent feedback was presented was also found to be of paramount importance; if the feedback is ambiguous, it may even prevent participants from learning the task. Clearly, unambiguous self-controlled feedback can give rise to higher levels of performance than other feedback conditions (compared to imposed schedule) but, depending on the way it is presented, the feedback can also prevent the participants from learning the task. In the discussion it is argued that unambiguous self-controlled concurrent feedback allows learners to more rapidly educate their attention towards more useful perceptual invariants and to calibrate the relation between perceptual invariants and action parameters. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据