1. Chapter 12 The Stages of Learning Pages: 263-266, 269-289 Drop – Gentiles two stage model

2. Learning stages • 3 stage information processing model • Where is effort directed (attention-focus)?

3. Fitts and Posner’s model: stage 1 • Cognitive stage • What processes are weighted the most? • Performance characteristics • Performance corrections

4. Fitts and Posner’s model: stage 2 • Associative stage • Performance • Performance corrections

5. Fitts and Posner’s model: stage 3 • Autonomous stage • Performance • Performance corrections

6. Describe the following based on stages • Little league baseball • Youth soccer • Adult exercise • Rehabilitation following stroke

7. 180 extension 140 Knee 100 flexion 60 160 200 240 extension Hip flexion Changes in kinematics: learning • Anderson and Sideway (1994) – soccer kick

8. Changes in muscle patterns: learning • Jaegers et al. (1989) – dart throwing clav. pect. ant. delt. Latis. dorsi clav. pect. ant. delt. Latis. dorsi

9. Changes in brain loops: learning • Doyen and Colleagues (2002, 2003) • Early in learning • Late in learning

10. From learning to expertise • Is expert performance just a matter of changing kinematic, muscle, and brain patterns with practice? • Or • Does the change in patterns indicate something innate or special to an individual?

11. Evaluating Expert Performance • Theories of exceptional abilities • Gardner (1983) • Newell and Simon (1972) • Ericsson and Charness (1994)

12. Do child prodigies become the best performers in their fields?

13. Innate factors: physiological measures • Ericsson and Charness (1994) – arguments against Gardner • What changes physiologically with practice? • What happens to physiological changes if practice is stopped? • Argues against a purely fixed innate biological basis for expertise

14. Increasing processing skills • Arguments against Newell and Simon • Reaction time Evidence • Spatial ability and memory evidence • Decision making • Do basic processing skills lead to exceptional performance? No!

15. Ericsson and Charness (1994): What is deliberate practice? • Deliberate practice is:

16. Characteristics of deliberate practice • How much practice is required to become an expert? • Regulation of practice • Purpose of deliberate practice

17. What does deliberate practice produce? • Knowledge structure and processing efficiency

18. Examining the time scale of expertise • Ericsson (1990)

19. Domain specific performance • How well does highly learned behavior transfer? • Expert performance seems to be domain specific

20. Is talent necessary to develop expertise? …the strong evidence for adaptive changes through extended practice, suggest that the influence of innate, domain-specific basic capacities (talent) on expert performance is small, possibly even negligible. We believe that the motivational factors that predispose children and adults to engage in deliberate practice are more likely to predict individual differences in level of attained expert performance Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996

21. Chapter 15 Augmented Feedback

22. General definitions of feedback • Task intrinsic feedback (Chapter 6) • Augmented feedback • Type of information presented • Time of presentation • Categories

23. Examples of augmented feedback • Golf • Qualitative • Quantitative

24. Presenting augmented feedback • Goal-oriented KR • Body oriented KP

25. Impact of augmented feedback on learning • Negative impact • Positive impact

26. Too much feedback can create a dependency: Guidance • Winstein et al (1996) • 3 feedback groups – 80 practice trials • Which group will perform the best on a retention test without any feedback?

27. 12 10 8 Absolute error (%) 6 4 2 End of practice Retention Guidance:Results of weight bearing task • How do you control for guidance?

28. Absolute and relative frequency: Fading • Winstein and Schmidt (1990) • Practice conditions (16 blocks) • Experimental issue:

29. Fading: results 12 RMS error score (deg) 10 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 I 2D Retention Acquisition

30. Delaying information on performance:Summary with a simple task • Schmidt et al. (1989) T1 T2 • Feedback presentation • Experimental issue:

31. Summary KR: simple task results 100 80 60 Absolute error (ms) 40 20 • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Im 2D Retention (25 trial-blocks) Acquisition (15 trial-blocks)

32. Delaying information on performance:Summary with a more difficult task • Schmidt et al. (1990) Flex elbow Extend elbow • Two goals: • Feedback presentation • Based on previous experiment:

33. Summary KR: difficult task results Performance score

34. Comparison of KP and KR • Kernodle and Carlton (1992) • Feedback presentation: • Did see ball flight or landing • Experimental issues: • Independent and dependent variables

35. 2 Mean Distanced Gained (m) 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Testing Session Comparison of KP and KR • Performance outcome

36. 10 9 8 Subjective form rating 7 6 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Test session Feedback comparison results • Performance evaluation

37. Augmented feedback should • Focus attention on • Provide information for • Serve as a motivating force (KR) • When is KR the least beneficial?

38. Chapter 13 Transfer of Learning

39. Transfer of performance gains • How do you test for transfer of gains? • Definitions of transfer

40. Transfer tests and relevance • Types of transfer tests • Theoretical • Practical

41. Bilateral transfer in a discrete task • Sainburg and Wang (2002) – discrete action • Manipulate - Initial arm • Transfer • Issue

42. Bilateral transfer in a discrete taskSainburg and Wang (2002) Training RA Training LA Transfer LA Transfer RA

43. Hemispheric roles in arm control • Sainburg and Wang (2002) concluded • Left-hemisphere: ND to D transfer • Right-hemisphere: D to ND transfer

44. Bilateral transfer task in a rhythmic task • Buchanan et al. (2007) – continuous motion In-phase anti-phase ext ext ext elbow elbow elbow flx flx flx flx ext flx ext flx ext wrist wrist wrist

45. Bilateral transfer in a rhythmic taskBuchanan et al (2007) • Training: 2 days • What did participants learn?

46. 100 80 60 40 20 0 Dominant Non-dominant Symmetric transfer of relative phase • Relative phase goal: 90o

47. 1 0.5 0 dominant Non-dominant Asymmetric transfer of joint amplitudes • Amplitude goal: Wrist/Elbow = 48o/80o = 0.6

48. Transfer is task and limb specific • Buchanan et al (2007) • Left-hemisphere • Right-hemisphere

49. Bilateral transfer in a sequencing task • Park and Shea (2006) • Transfer Conditions • Experimental Issue

50. Bilateral transfer in a sequencing task • Time series and Movement time