2. 1 1 Augmented Feedback Chapter 15 – slide set 2

3. 2 Feedback “scheduling” Reducing guidance…improving learning Relative frequency…less is more Summary…100% feedback but only 10% of the time Self-selected frequency (tend to choose less frequent) Choose to get feedback when accurate, and works best when the choice is after performance (Chiviakowsky & Wulf, 2005) Bandwidth feedback… 123

4. 3 Feedback “scheduling” 0% (no) bandwidth (100%KR) 10% bandwidth (?% KR) 425ms475ms525ms575ms Target (500ms) 425ms“…..”“…..”575ms ‘Correct’ 450 550 1

5. 4 Feedback “scheduling” Reducing guidance…improving learning Bandwidth feedback… Provides guidance (correction) only when necessary (big errors) Also tells people NOT to correct when they are reasonably accurate 1

6. 5 Feedback “scheduling” Bandwidth feedback…more than just a relative frequency effect From: Lee and Carnahan (1990) 123

7. 6 Feedback “scheduling” Bandwidth feedback…effects on performance? “Blocking”…similar to guidance ideas When you increase the bandwidth, you decrease relative frequency of feedback In doing so you reduce “blocking” of sensory feedback Maladaptive short-term corrections 1

8. 7 Feedback “scheduling” Bandwidth feedback…effects on performance? Maladaptive short-term corrections Increased bandwidths reduce attempts to correct very small errors in performance Note influence of “no-feedback” trials 1

9. 8 1 Feedback “scheduling” Bandwidth feedback…learning? Larger bandwidths (up to a point) may improve learning Cause: Blocking Reduction in MSTC. You want the bandwidth to be sized so that it reduces RF to an appropriate level and reduce the occurrence of MSTC

10. 9 More recent findings Recent research has suggested guidance ideas are not always accurate Sometimes frequent feedback seems desirable even for learning The effect of the feedback on attentional focus seems to be important 1

11. 10 High frequency is good Wulf & Shea (1999) (ski sim.) Concurrent feedback The more often feedback was presented, the better people performed Why? Performance improvement Smith, Taylor, & Withers (1997) (golf chip) Terminal feedback BW (10%) better than BW (0%), for transitional feedback Performance improvement 12

12. 11 High frequency can be good Retention data from a soccer kicking study Pay attention to: Feedback frequency Attentional focus Interaction between the two 12

13. 12 High frequency can be good Another way of looking at that data… 1

14. The feedback statements... Internal Focus Feedback Position your foot below the ball’s midline to lift the ball Position your bodyweight and the non-kicking foot behind the ball Lock your ankle down and use the instep to strike the ball Keep your knee bent as you swing your leg back and straighten your knee before contact To strike the ball, the swing of the leg should be as long as possible External Focus Feedback Strike the ball below it’s midline to lift it, that is, kick underneath it Be behind the ball, not over it, and lean back Stroke the ball toward the target as though passing to another player Use a long-lever action like the swing of a golf club before contact with the ball To strike the ball, create a pendulum-like motion with as long a duration as possible 13

15. From the lab thing: 14