Katherine J Sullivan1, Shailesh S Kantak, Patricia A Burtner. 1. Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, 1540 E Alcazar St, CHP-155, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9006, USA. kasulliv@usc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reduced feedback during motor skill practice benefits motor learning. However, it is unknown whether these findings can be applied to motor learning in children, given that children have different information-processing capabilities than adults. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different relative frequencies of feedback on skill acquisition in children compared with young adults. SUBJECTS: The participants were 20 young adults and 20 children. METHODS: All participants practiced 200 trials of a discrete arm movement with specific spatiotemporal parameters. Participants from each group (adults and children) were randomly assigned to either a 100% feedback group or a reduced (62% faded) feedback group. Learning was inferred from the performance on the delayed (24-hour) retention and reacquisition tests. RESULTS: All participants improved accuracy and consistency across practice trials. During practice, the adults performed with significantly less error than the children. Adults who practiced with reduced feedback performed with increased consistency during the retention test compared with those who practiced with 100% feedback. In contrast, children who received reduced feedback during practice performed with less accuracy and consistency during the retention test than those who received 100% feedback. However, when feedback was reintroduced during the reacquisition test, the children in the reduced feedback group were able to improve their performance comparable to those in the 100% feedback group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: During motor learning, children use feedback in a manner different from that of adults. To optimize motor learning, children may require longer periods of practice, with feedback reduced more gradually, compared with young adults.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reduced feedback during motor skill practice benefits motor learning. However, it is unknown whether these findings can be applied to motor learning in children, given that children have different information-processing capabilities than adults. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different relative frequencies of feedback on skill acquisition in children compared with young adults. SUBJECTS: The participants were 20 young adults and 20 children. METHODS: All participants practiced 200 trials of a discrete arm movement with specific spatiotemporal parameters. Participants from each group (adults and children) were randomly assigned to either a 100% feedback group or a reduced (62% faded) feedback group. Learning was inferred from the performance on the delayed (24-hour) retention and reacquisition tests. RESULTS: All participants improved accuracy and consistency across practice trials. During practice, the adults performed with significantly less error than the children. Adults who practiced with reduced feedback performed with increased consistency during the retention test compared with those who practiced with 100% feedback. In contrast, children who received reduced feedback during practice performed with less accuracy and consistency during the retention test than those who received 100% feedback. However, when feedback was reintroduced during the reacquisition test, the children in the reduced feedback group were able to improve their performance comparable to those in the 100% feedback group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: During motor learning, children use feedback in a manner different from that of adults. To optimize motor learning, children may require longer periods of practice, with feedback reduced more gradually, compared with young adults.
Authors: James E Gehringer; David J Arpin; Elizabeth Heinrichs-Graham; Tony W Wilson; Max J Kurz Journal: J Physiol Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Darin A Padua; Lindsay J DiStefano; Timothy E Hewett; William E Garrett; Stephen W Marshall; Grace M Golden; Sandra J Shultz; Susan M Sigward Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Catherine M Suttle; Dean R Melmoth; Alison L Finlay; John J Sloper; Simon Grant Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799