| Summary: | The present study was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of four
types of augmented feedback on the acquisition of a rapid aiming movement. Static
graphic feedback depicting the primary submovement and error correction phases of the
just performed movement (Static group) was compared to numeric KR (KR group). In
addition, concurrent kinematic feedback (CD group) was compared to delayed kinematic
feedback (DD group). It was predicted that delaying kinematic information would
facilitate the performance of the DD group during no-KR retention trials, due to an
increased processing of kinesthetic feedback during the movement and subsequent
calibration of this information with the delayed visual feedback.
It was found that participants in the CD group produced less absolute error,
consumed a smaller proportion of TMT in the primary submovement phase, produced less
variable primary submovement, and produced longer secondary submovements than
participants in the other three groups. In addition they had significantly more trials
containing an error correction phase than participants in the Static and DD groups.
However, there was no statistical difference between the four groups in their overall
Score, TMT, or constant error. These results indicated that participants in the CD group
utilized a two movement strategy during Acquisition while those in the DD group did not.
As participants in the DD group did not frequently use an error correction phase, it was
concluded that delayed visual kinesthetic feedback was not used to calibrate kinesthetic
feedback modalities. In Retention, significant condition by group interactions, on most
measures, indicated that the removal feedback immediately and significantly affected the performance of the CD group, where as the performance of the KR, Static and DD groups
deteriorated after the one week retention interval. It was concluded from these data that
the delayed feedback did not induce the disrupting or guiding qualities that concurrent
visual feedback did. In addition, these findings supported the Guidance Hypothesis
(Salmoni etal., 1984).
During both Acquisition and Retention, shifts in end position were found to be
concomitant to shifts in start position. That is participants overshot the target when they
began their movement with their elbow in the most extended position, and progressively
shortened their movement as the start position moved closer to their mid-line. As
participants were aiming to a common end point and not a series of targets, 45° from the
start positions, it appeared that participants coded the movement endpoint. This effect
was most pronounced for participants practicing with delayed feedback; as participants in
the CD group accurately hit the target in acquisition by making visually based on-line
corrections to the initial end-point code. In Retention, however, the CD group overshot
the target and, like the other three groups, produced movements to a common end point.
That participants were coding their movements to end at a single common end point rather
than traverse a particular distance is well accounted for by the Equilibrium Point
Hypothesis (Feldman, 1986). Indeed an equilibrium point interpretation was used to
explain these findings. === Education, Faculty of === Kinesiology, School of === Graduate
|
|---|
