scholarly journals Expecting to teach a novel golf putting task did not enhance retention performance: A replication attempt of Daou and colleagues (2016;2016)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad McKay ◽  
Julia Hussien ◽  
Michael J Carter ◽  
Zachary Dillon Yantha ◽  
Diane M. Ste-Marie
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Golf Putting ◽  
Radial Error ◽  
G 13 ◽  
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory ◽  
Golf Putt

While research has identified several practice variables that purportedly enhance motor learning, recent replication failures highlight the importance of conducting high-powered, pre-registered replications. The “expecting to teach” phenomenon was first reported in the motor learning literature by Daou and colleagues and suggested learners benefit from practicing with the understanding they will later need to teach the skill. The extant data have been mixed but generally positive. While expecting to teach has been shown to enhance motor learning of a golf putt, the mechanisms linked with this benefit are yet to be determined. As such, this study sought to replicate the expecting to teach effect and to extend those findings by exploring participants’ thought processes. Participants (N = 76) were randomly assigned to one of two groups in which they were told that they were learning a golf putt in order to 1) be tested on the skill or 2) to teach the skill to another individual. On Day 1, participants completed pre-test putts, a pre-acquisition intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), a 2-minute study of an instructional booklet, 50 practice putts and a post-acquisition IMI. During practice, participants were also afforded opportunities to continue studying the booklet and to complete additional putts. Participants returned 24-hours later to complete a retention, a transfer (50 cm longer golf-putt), and a free recall test, as well as a post-study survey to reveal thoughts they engaged in after practice but before (or during) the retention test. Similar to Daou et al., no significant differences were found with study time, number of acquisition putts, or motivation. However, golf-putting performance during retention resulted in no differences for radial error, g = −.13 (95%CI [−.55, .29]), between the two groups and no differences were shown for the recall test. The present study fails to replicate the benefits reported in the original experiments.

scholarly journals Expecting to teach a novel golf putting task did not enhance retention performance: A replication attempt of Daou and colleagues

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad McKay ◽  
Julia Hussien ◽  
Michael Carter ◽  
Zachary Yantha ◽  
Diane Ste-Marie
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Golf Putting ◽  
Radial Error ◽  
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory ◽  
Golf Putt

While research has identified several practice variables that purportedly enhance motor learning, recent replication failures highlight the importance of conducting high-powered, pre-registered replications. The "expecting to teach" phenomenon was first reported in the motor learning literature by Daou and colleagues and suggested learners benefit from practicing with the understanding they will later need to teach the skill. The extant data have been mixed but generally positive. While expecting to teach has been shown to enhance motor learning of a golf putt, the mechanisms linked with this benefit are yet to be determined. As such, this study sought to replicate the expecting to teach effect and to extend those findings by exploring participants’ thought processes. Participants (N = 76) were randomly assigned to one of two groups in which they were told that they were learning a golf putt in order to 1) be tested on the skill or 2) teach the skill to another individual. On Day 1, participants completed pre-test putts, a pre-acquisition intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), a 2-minute study of an instructional booklet, 50 practice putts and a post-acquisition IMI. During practice, participants were also afforded opportunities to continue studying the booklet and to complete additional putts. Participants returned 24 hours later to complete a retention, a transfer (50-cm longer golf-putt), and a free recall test, as well as a post-study survey to reveal thoughts they engaged in after practice but before (or during) the retention test. Similar to Daou et al., no significant differences were found with study time, number of acquisition putts, or motivation. However, golf-putting performance during retention resulted in no differences for radial error, g = -0.13 (95% C.I. [-0.55, 0.29]), between the two groups and no differences were shown for the recall test. The present study fails to replicate the benefits reported in the original experiments.

Specifying Levels of Processing

1979 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Parkin
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Levels Of Processing ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Primary Associate ◽  
Semantic Condition ◽  
Processing Depth ◽  
Naming Latencies

This study examines the nature of stimulus processing under semantic and nonsemantic orienting instructions. Two experiments are reported in which subjects were presented with a series of trials each beginning with the presentation of a “decision word” about which they made either a semantic or non-semantic orienting decision. This decision was followed by a word in coloured ink whose colour subjects were required to name as quickly as possible. On half the trails the coloured word was the primary associate of the decision word whilst on the other half the two words were normatively unrelated. On completion of the experiments the subjects were given an unexpected free recall test. The semantic orienting condition led to longer colour naming latencies on associate trials whilst no such difference was found in the non-semantic condition. The semantic condition also produced higher levels of incidental recall although paradoxically an analysis of associative clustering in recall failed to show any difference between the two orienting conditions. The results are interpreted as support for the “Levels of Processing” approach to memory since they provide an index of processing depth which is independent of retention performance.

EXPRESS: On the Pervasive Effect of Word Frequency in Metamemory

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110533
Author(s):  
Pedro Simão Mendes ◽  
Monika Undorf
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Performance Judgments

Predictions of one’s future memory performance – judgments of learning (JOLs) – are based on the cues that learners regard as diagnostic of memory performance. One of these cues is word frequency or how often words are experienced in the language. It is not clear, however, whether word frequency would affect JOLs when other cues are also available. The current study aims to close this gap by testing whether objective and subjective word frequency affect JOLs in the presence of font size as an additional cue. Across three experiments, participants studied words that varied in word frequency (Experiment 1: high and low objective frequency; Experiment 2: a whole continuum from high to low objective frequency; Experiment 3: high and low subjective and objective frequency) and were presented in a large (48pt) or a small (18pt) font size, made JOLs, and completed a free recall test. Results showed that people based their JOLs on both word frequency and font size. We conclude that word frequency is an important cue that affects metamemory even in multiple-cue situations.

scholarly journals Effects of Multiple Sessions of Cathodal Priming and Anodal HD-tDCS on Visuo Motor Task Plateau Learning and Retention

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Besson ◽  
Makii Muthalib ◽  
Christophe De Vassoigne ◽  
Jonh Rothwell ◽  
Stephane Perrey
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Motor Task ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Baseline Training ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Speed Accuracy

A single session of priming cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) prior to anodal tDCS (c-a-tDCS) allows cumulative effects on motor learning and retention. However, the impact of multiple sessions of c-a-tDCS priming on learning and retention remains unclear. Here, we tested whether multiple sessions of c-a-tDCS (over 3 consecutive days) applied over the left sensorimotor cortex can further enhance motor learning and retention of an already learned visuo-motor task as compared to anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) or sham. In a between group and randomized double-blind sham-controlled study design, 25 participants separated in 3 independent groups underwent 2 days of baseline training without tDCS followed by 3-days of training with both online and offline tDCS, and two retention tests (1 and 14 days later). Each training block consisted of five trials of a 60 s circular-tracing task intersected by 60 s rest, and performance was assessed in terms of speed–accuracy trade-off represented notably by an index of performance (IP). The main findings of this exploratory study were that multiple sessions of c-a-tDCS significantly further enhanced IP above baseline training levels over the 3 training days that were maintained over the 2 retention days, but these learning and retention performance changes were not significantly different from the sham group. Subtle differences in the changes in speed–accuracy trade-off (components of IP) between c-a-tDCS (maintenance of accuracy over increasing speed) and a-tDCS (increasing speed over maintenance of accuracy) provide preliminary insights to a mechanistic modulation of motor performance with priming and polarity of tDCS.

scholarly journals Optimal Schedules in Multitask Motor Learning

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 667-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Yoon Lee ◽  
Youngmin Oh ◽  
Sung Shin Kim ◽  
Robert A. Scheidt ◽  
Nicolas Schweighofer
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
State Space Model ◽  
Retention Performance ◽  
Single Session ◽  
Term Retention ◽  
Long Term Retention ◽  
Do So

Although scheduling multiple tasks in motor learning to maximize long-term retention of performance is of great practical importance in sports training and motor rehabilitation after brain injury, it is unclear how to do so. We propose here a novel theoretical approach that uses optimal control theory and computational models of motor adaptation to determine schedules that maximize long-term retention predictively. Using Pontryagin’s maximum principle, we derived a control law that determines the trial-by-trial task choice that maximizes overall delayed retention for all tasks, as predicted by the state-space model. Simulations of a single session of adaptation with two tasks show that when task interference is high, there exists a threshold in relative task difficulty below which the alternating schedule is optimal. Only for large differences in task difficulties do optimal schedules assign more trials to the harder task. However, over the parameter range tested, alternating schedules yield long-term retention performance that is only slightly inferior to performance given by the true optimal schedules. Our results thus predict that in a large number of learning situations wherein tasks interfere, intermixing tasks with an equal number of trials is an effective strategy in enhancing long-term retention.

Spacing Effects on Implicit Picture Memory

1998 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 396-398
Author(s):  
Norihiko Kitao
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Perceptual Identification ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Perceptual Cues ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Picture Memory ◽  
Spacing Effects ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Identification Test

25 undergraduates studied the stimulus pictures of common objects successively presented as spaced or massed repetitions, or one at a time. Immediately after a study period, they were given a free-recall test followed by a perceptual identification test. Analysis indicated that spacing effects were observed on the free-recall test but not in perceptual identification. On the later test, each stimulus picture was exposed for a short period and subjects were more likely to use perceptual cues than on first the test. Thus, the spacing effects on memory may be eliminated at test as there is no benefit of conceptual cues.

Effects of Modality of Presentation on Delayed Recognition

1977 ◽  
Vol 45 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1203-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall W. Engle ◽  
Elizabeth D. Durban
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Auditory Presentation ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Modality Effects ◽  
Delayed Recognition

Auditorily and visually presented lists were either tested or not tested immediately after input and were later tested on a delayed recognition test. For those lists given the immediate free-recall test, auditory presentation was superior on this immediate test. On the delayed recognition test the tested lists led to higher performance than non-tested lists. For tested lists auditory presentation led to superior recognition for the terminal serial positions, while for non-tested lists visual presentation led to higher performance on the last few positions. The fact that modality of presentation had opposite effects on delayed recognition of the lists was discussed in terms of current models of modality effects.

scholarly journals Studying texts in a second language: The importance of test type

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1062-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
HELEEN VANDER BEKEN ◽  
MARC BRYSBAERT
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Free Recall ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Expository Texts ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Information Encoding ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Lower Performance ◽  
L1 And L2

Little is known about the extent to which information encoding and retrieval differ between materials studied in first and second language (L1 and L2). In this study we compared memory for short, expository texts in L1 and L2, tested with a free recall test and a true/false judgement test. Our results show that students performed at the same level on the recognition test in both languages but not on the free recall test, with much lower performance in L2 than in L1, defined here as the dominant language. The L2 recall cost suggests that students’ performance may be underestimated if they are exclusively tested with essay-type exams in L2.

Investigating the Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of an Incidental Choice on Motor Learning

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk F. Grand ◽  
Marcos Daou ◽  
Keith R. Lohse ◽  
Matthew W. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Intrinsic Motivation ◽  
Learning Motivation ◽  
Augmented Feedback ◽  
Feedback Processing ◽  
Choice Group ◽  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Practice Performance ◽  
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

The present study investigated whether motivation and augmented feedback processing explain the effect of an incidental choice on motor learning, and examined whether motivation and feedback processing generally predict learning. Accordingly, participants were assigned to one of two groups, choice or yoked, then asked to practice a nondominant arm beanbag toss. The choice group was allowed to choose the color of the beanbag with which they made the toss, whereas the yoked group was not. Motor learning was determined by delayed-posttest accuracy and precision. Motivation and augmented feedback processing were indexed via the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and electroencephalography, respectively. We predicted the choice group would exhibit greater motor learning, motivation, and augmented feedback processing, and that the latter two variables would predict learning. Results showed that an incidental choice failed to enhance motor learning, motivation, or augmented feedback processing. In addition, neither motivation nor augmented feedback processing predicted motor learning. However, motivation and augmented feedback processing were correlated, with both factors predicting changes in practice performance. Thus, results suggest the effect of incidental choices on motor learning may be tenuous, and indicate motivation and augmented feedback processing may be more closely linked to changes in practice performance than motor learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document