Search results for "Augmented feedback"
showing 3 items of 3 documents
Adolescents' postural control learning according to the frequency of knowledge of process
2019
Feedback is one of the most influential factors for motor skills learning. Physical Education teachers commonly use verbal cues to provide knowledge of process (KP) when teaching motor skills, but the ideal presentation frequency for KP in adolescents is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the frequency of KP (i.e., 100%, 67%, 0%) on dynamic balance. Thirty adolescents, age 14–15 years, participated in the study. Performance on a stabilometer platform was used to assess dynamic balance. Participants received feedback after each trial (100%), in two out of three trials (67%), or no feedback during 12 30-s trials of practice. Adolescents who received feedback (6…
Effect of Concurrent Visual Feedback Frequency on Postural Control Learning in Adolescents.
2018
The purpose was to find better augmented visual feedback frequency (100% or 67%) for learning a balance task in adolescents. Thirty subjects were divided randomly into a control group, and 100% and 67% feedback groups. The three groups performed pretest (3 trials), practice (12 trials), posttest (3 trials) and retention (3 trials, 24 hours later). The reduced feedback group showed lower RMS in the posttest than in the pretest (p = 0.04). The control and reduced feedback groups showed significant lower median frequency in the posttest than in the pretest (p < 0.05). Both feedback groups showed lower values in retention than in the pretest (p < 0.05). Even when the effect of feedback frequenc…
Invited commentary: Differential learning is different from contextual interference learning.
2016
There has been renewed interest in the detailed structure of what is learned and the boundary conditions that foster motor learning. The accompanying article by Hossner et al. (2016), particularly their findings about augmented feedback in the context of different levels of additional noise, is consistent with this focus. Unfortunately, the findings from Hossner and colleagues appear to be based on incorrect interpretations of the differential learning (DL) approach. Essential discrepancies in the experimental conditions suggest the basis for the deviating results obtained in comparison to those of the original DL experiments. In this comment, it is also shown that the author's assumptions …