HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vander Linden, D. W Articles by Greene, T. A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vander Linden, D. W Articles by Greene, T. A Related Collections Therapeutic Exercise Motor Control and Motor Learning Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

The Effect of Frequency of Kinetic Feedback on Learning an Isometric Force Production Task in Nondisabled Subjects

DW Vander Linden, PhD, PT, is Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health, Social, and Public Services, Eastern Washington University, Mail Stop 4, Cheney, WA 99004 (USA).
JH Cauraugh, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Exercise Science, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
TA Greene, PT, is Co-Clinical Coordinator, Treasure Coast Rehabilitation Center, Vero Beach, FL 32962.

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of kinetic feedback frequency and concurrent kinetic feedback on the performance and learning of an isometric force production task in young, nondisabled adults. Subjects. Twenty-four nondisabled, right-hand–dominant adults (18 male, 6 female), aged 19 to 33 years (=22.5, SD=4.1), participated in this study. Methods. Eight subjects in each of three kinetic feedback groups performed an isometric elbow extension task in an attempt to minimize error between their effort and a force template over a 5-second period. Feedback was provided (1) concurrently with and after each attempt (concurrent feedback), (2) after each attempt (100% feedback), or (3) after every other attempt (50% feedback). Immediate and delayed (48-hour) retention tests were performed without feedback. Separate analyses of variance for repeated measures were used to compare task error among the three feedback groups for acquisition, immediate retention, and delayed retention trials. Results. A significant interaction was found during the acquisition trial blocks, but at each trial block, subjects in the concurrent feedback group exhibited less error than did the subjects in either the 50% or 100% feedback group during the acquisition trials. For the immediate retention test, the 50% and 100% feedback groups exhibited 58% and 39% less error, respectively, than did the concurrent group. For the delayed retention test, the 50% and 100% feedback groups exhibited 52% and 26% less error, respectively, than did the concurrent group. In the immediate and delayed retention tests, subjects in the 50% feedback group displayed less error (31% and 36%, respectively) than did the 100% feedback group. Conclusion and Discussion. When permanent changes in the performance of a motor task are desired, concurrent feedback about task performance may be less desirable than feedback that is provided after the task has been completed. In addition, when feedback was used after the task had been completed, a lower frequency of feedback resulted in more permanent changes in the subjects' ability to complete the task.

Key Words: Feedback • Kinetics • Learning • Motor activity • Motor skills

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Maas, D. A. Robin, S. N. Austermann Hula, S. E. Freedman, G. Wulf, K. J. Ballard, and R. A. Schmidt Principles of Motor Learning in Treatment of Motor Speech Disorders Am J Speech Lang Pathol, August 1, 2008; 17(3): 277 - 298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. N. Judkins, D. Oleynikov, and N. Stergiou Enhanced Robotic Surgical Training Using Augmented Visual Feedback Surgical Innovation, March 1, 2008; 15(1): 59 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.-Y. Chang, G.-L. Chang, C.-J. C. Chien, K.-C. Chung, and A.-T. Hsu Effectiveness of Two Forms of Feedback on Training of a Joint Mobilization Skill by Using a Joint Translation Simulator Physical Therapy, April 1, 2007; 87(4): 418 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Reo and V. S. Mercer Effects of Live, Videotaped, or Written Instruction on Learning an Upper-Extremity Exercise Program Physical Therapy, July 1, 2004; 84(7): 622 - 633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. H McNevin, G. Wulf, and C. Carlson Effects of Attentional Focus, Self-Control, and Dyad Training on Motor Learning: Implications for Physical Rehabilitation Physical Therapy, April 1, 2000; 80(4): 373 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]