The previous research generally demonstrates high frequency of feedback degrades motor learning. However, motor learning research often involves simple task with one-dimension or single-joint system. Recently, Wulf and Shea (2001) argued that these findings derived from simple task paradigms are often inconsistent with the results of complex skill learning. The purpose of the present experiment was to determine whether high frequency of concurrent feedback facilitates complex balance skill learning, and subsequently enhances balance ability compared to reduced feedback frequency.
Method
20 participants (age: 20-35) were randomly assigned to 100% or 50% concurrent feedback group. The participants were asked to replicate ten repeated goal sinusoid curves with ±10o amplitude and 1 Hz frequency for each by moving their body weight on a balance board demarcated to maximum 20° on each side. A Biopac MP100 System was used to record board movements at 50 Hz. At the first day of the experiment, a single block pretest was followed by 8-block acquisition practice for the goal curves. The pretest only required a participant to keep the board parallel to the floor. All the participants received the goal curves presented on a 19” computer screen placed 2.5 m in front of the board. Their actual movement curves were concurrently drawn on the screen at 100% or 50% frequency as they produced the required movements on the balance board. A one-block retention test and posttest were administered 24 hrs after the acquisition.
Analysis/Results
To determine the acquisition performance for the feedback conditions, we applied a 2 (Feedback Condition) x 8 (Block) ANOVA analysis with repeated measure of Block on RMSE (total performance error), amplitude error, and temporal error. The results showed that practice resulted in performance improvement for the both conditions on the three dependent variables. As the condition effect, the analysis indicated that the100% feedback group produced significantly smaller errors in terms of movement amplitude [F (1, 18) = 4.64, p<.05] and tended to have smaller errors for RMSE [F (1, 18) = 3.96, p=.06] compared to 50% feedback group. However, a separate ANOVA analysis for retention test failed to detect any difference between the feedback conditions.
Conclusions
More interesting, we analyzed the difference of the pretest and posttest on balance ability. The results demonstrated the participants in 100% feedback condition had more performance change relative to 50% feedback condition. It suggests that high frequency of concurrent feedback results in more improvement on individual's balance ability.
See more of: Research Consortium