Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Feedback
From bandwidths onwards
First, the guidance hypothesis
• Remember the guidance hypothesis? Usually examined with simple button tasks Some others have tried different tasks now...
Guidance and bimanual coordination
• Task layout...
Guidance and bimanual coordination
• Feedback types...
Guidance and bimanual coordination
• Results... Guidance hypothesis supported Also, specificity of practice
supported for continuous but not discrete feedback.
Feedback goodFeedback goodFeedback bad!
Guidance and driving
• A far cry from a button and a barrier...
Guidance and driving
• Task...
Feedback bad!
Guidance and driving
• Measures...
Feedback bad!
Guidance and driving
• Results...
Feedback goodFeedback no good
Seems to suggest maladaptive short term
corrections
Bandwidths and driving
• Similar task, but with some problems fixed
Bandwidths and driving
• Similar task, but with some problems fixed• Now use a simulator, rather than the “real thing”
Bandwidths and driving
• Groups:
Basically, the feedback used is now vibrations of the car seat, applied either when within or
outside of a fixed distance from the center lane
There are also a control group and a “realistic” group
Bandwidths and driving
• Results: Seems conventional BW feedback works quite well.
Self-controlled feedback
• Relationship to bandwidth feedback Providing guidance when thought to be most effective
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Manipulation:
Choose whether you got feedback on a trial Some choose before the trial, some choose after What difference would this make?
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Task:
Can err in proportions and/or in absolute times
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Results – performance quality
Main differences in transfer
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Results – when do they choose to receive feedback?
Seems feedback is chosen after “good” trials
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007)
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) Manipulation: receive feedback after good or poor trials Task: beanbag toss to target, 60 trials practice, 10 trials
test Feedback: (e.g.) -90, +70
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) Results - accuracy
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky et al. (2008)
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) task
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) results
significantNot significant
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) More KR vs. less KR Same task as C et al 2008.
All participants do 60 trials Form groups after practice – based on proportion of feedback
requested. Who retains the task the best?
Self-controlled feedback
• Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) Results:
Basically a warning that some kids might not
request enough feedback – needs to be used with
education in mind!
Motivational factors – “good trials”
• All the focus on “good trials” gets folk thinking of motivational effects of feedback (rather than simple error correction...
Motivational factors – “good trials”
• Badami et al. (2011) Same manipulation as C & W (2007)
Motivational factors – “ability”
• Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009)
Some are told the task reflects an inherent ability, some that it is an acquirable skill
Motivational factors – “ability”
• Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009)
Motivational factors – “fake feedback”
• Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)
Motivational factors – “fake feedback”
• Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)
