Self-Controlled Feedback and Trait Anxiety in Motor Skill Acquisition

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.35057

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.5, 406-409

Published Online May 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.35057

406

Self-Controlled Feedback and Trait Anxiety in

Motor Skill Acquisition

Raquel Maia Bokums, Cassio M. Meira Jr., Jaqueline F. O. Neiva,

Thaynara Oliveira, Jusselma Ferreira Maia

University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Received February 22nd, 2012; revised March 27th, 2012; accepted April 28th, 2012

This study examined the relationship between trait anxiety (TA) and self-controlled (SC) frequency of

feedback in the acquisition of the overhead volleyball serve. Forty-eight adolescent girls performed 240

acquisition trials, with the provision of knowledge of results (KR). After 48 h, they performed 16 transfer

no-KR trials. Although no interactions were found on either acquisition or transfer, the high-anxious girls

requested more feedback than the low-anxious ones. Also, feedback was requested more after accurate

than after inaccurate trials.

Keywords: Self-Control; Feedback; Knowledge of Results; Anxiety; Motor Learning

Introduction

With the purpose of reconciling counterintuitive findings in

motor learning (ML), Guadagnoli and Lee (2004) proposed a

challenge-point framework (CPF) based on the idea that learn-

ing is directly related to the level of challenge imposed by a

practice or feedback condition. These authors argued that

learning is maximized when a person faces an optimal level of

challenge during the process of motor skill acquisition. In con-

trast, learning will be compromised if the challenge imposed is

either too high or too low. The challenge-point created by any

given ML situation is determined by the functional difficulty of

the task, which results from an interaction between nominal

task difficulty, the learner’s skill level, and the conditions of

practice and/or feedback. The nominal difficulty of a task is a

fixed characteristic based on specific perceptual and motor

requirements. For example, an underarm volleyball serve has a

lower nominal task difficulty than an overhead serve. Thus, the

higher the nominal task difficulty, the higher the functional task

difficulty and, in turn, the higher the challenge-point of learning.

CPF has gained support in the learning of sport (Brady, 2008;

Guadagnoli & Lindquist, 2007) and surgical (Cristancho, Mou-

ssa & Dubrowski, 2010; Gofton, 2006; Hodges, Kuper, & Phil,

2012; Moulton, Dubrowski, MacRae, Graham, Grober, & Rez-

nick, 2006) skills, handwriting (Asher, 2006), walking (Do-

mingo & Ferris, 2009), and in physical therapy (Descarreaux,

Passmore, & Cantin, 2010; Maas, Robin, Hula, Freedman,

Wulf, Ballard, & Schmidt, 2008; Onla-or & Winstein, 2008).

Given that, in the CPF, practice variables have been examined

across different types of participants, we believe that investi-

gating people with different levels of trait anxiety (TA) could

help to better understand ML processes.

TA, defined as a predisposition of an individual to perceive a

wide range of situations that, objectively, are not actually dan-

gerous as threatening (Weinberg & Gould, 2011), has been

pointed out as a personal characteristic that influences motor

performance and learning (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008; Wris-

berg, 2007). Individuals who have high levels of TA respond to

perceived threatening situations with reactions that are dispro-

portionate to the objective danger when compared to low TA

individuals (Spielberger, 1972). Although high TA is often

associated with negative performance on cognitive tasks (Ey-

senck, 1992; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992), there is no evidence of

deleterious effects of high TA on motor performance (Calvo &

Ramos, 1989, Experiment 2). Negative effects of high TA on

the efficiency of processing are generally greater in concurrent

cognitive tasks (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007).

Knowledge of results (KR) is a form of augmented feedback

which provides information on the outcome of the movement

(Magill, 2011). Self-controlled (SC) frequency of KR gives the

learner the opportunity of receiving information only when he

or she requests it. Several studies have shown that SC-KR fa-

cilitates ML when compared to externally controlled KR

schedules (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2007, 2009; Chivia-

cowsky et al., 2005, 2008; Janelle et al., 1995, 1997). It has

been argued that SC-KR, when compared to yoked (YK) KR

(when KR is presented at a frequency yoked to a SC partici-

pant’s KR requests), engages the leaner in the process of learn-

ing more, on account of the freedom it provides to make deci-

sions about some of its aspects. More specifically, SC-KR al-

lows engagement in problem-solving strategies as well as acts

as a source of motivation to continue to practice. Self-control is

thought to facilitate ML because it enables subjects to test

movement strategies (Wulf & Toole, 1999), to manage practice

according to their needs (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2005),

and to perceive themselves more autonomous and thus more

motivated during the learning process (Lewthwaite & Wulf,

2010).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship

between TA and SC-KR in the acquisition and transfer of the

overhead volleyball serve. Grounded upon CPF and on litera-

ture about TA and SC-KR, we hypothesize that low-anxious

individuals who self-control their feedbacks will show superior

motor learning than their YK and high-anxious counterparts.

R. M. BOKUMS ET AL.

Method

Forty-eight female students aged between 12 and 14 years

(M = 13.33, SD = .72) were selected from a sample of 134 stu-

dents to take part in the study. All participants filled out the

Brazilian version (Biaggio & Natalício, 2003) of the State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,

Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) and were organized into three categories,

based on their TA scores: low TA (31 - 42), intermediate TA

(43 - 51), and high TA (52 - 63). For the purposes of the current

study, only low and high TA individuals were asked to partici-

pate in this study. Participants were then semi-randomly as-

signed to one of four experimental groups: self-control/high

trait anxiety (SC-HighTA), yoked/high trait anxiety (YK-

HighTA), self-control/low trait anxiety (SC-LowTA), and

yoked/low trait anxiety (YK-LowTA). The parents/tutors of all

participants signed consent forms, approved by the University

Ethics Board, prior to their participation. None of the partici-

pants had prior experience at the task.

The task, an overhead volleyball serve, is defined as having

high nominal difficulty (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004) due to vari-

ous perceptual motor and physical fitness abilities underlying it,

such as anticipation timing, multi-limb coordination, speed of

arm movement, gross body coordination, arm explosive strength

(Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984), static balance, visual acuity,

visual tracking, and eye-hand coordination (Magill, 2011). All

serves were performed with the dominant hand and aimed to-

ward a circular target, 18 meters in diameter. The task’s goal

was to serve the ball on the target’s center (10 points), which

measured one meter in diameter; the other areas measured one

meter in diameter more than the next smallest area, assuming

values of 8, 6, 4 and 2, respectively. Zero was the score given

for a ball which did not fly over the net or for a ball which

landed outside the target. In case a ball had landed on the bor-

derline, it was given the score of the area whose value was

higher. All borderlines were 5 cm wide. To perform the task,

participants stood behind the service line, diagonally to the net.

Participants performed 240 acquisition trials, equally distrib-

uted over five days of practice. Each practice day consisted of

two blocks of 24 trials. Sixteen transfer trials were administered

48 hours after the end of acquisition. Prior to the start of the

experiment, each participant watched an instructional video on

how to perform the overhead volleyball serve, which was

shown as many times as the participant wanted and were given

information about task goal, scoring system, and basic proce-

dures of receiving KR. During acquisition, the serves were

performed from a fixed area on the left side of the court, at a

distance of five meters from the net. During transfer, partici-

pants served from the same distance, but from the right side of

the court. The net’s height was set at 2 meters.

During acquisition, terminal KR was provided verbally about

both direction (left, right, near or far) and magnitude (10, 8, 6, 4,

2, and 0). No KR was given during transfer. The participants in

the SC condition were informed that they would control the

frequency of KR; that is, they would not receive KR, unless

they asked for it. The YK participants were informed that they

would only receive KR after certain trials. Participants were

prevented from seeing where the ball landed on account of a

black tarp on the net. Five minutes after the end of acquisition,

the participants answered a questionnaire (adapted from

Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002) about the preference of receiving

KR after accurate (good) or inaccurate (bad) trials.

Data was organized in blocks of 16 trials (average score), to-

taling 15 acquisition blocks (A1-A15) and one transfer block

(T). No missing data or outliers were detected. Analysis in-

volved the comparison among means (analysis of variance). No

violations of data distribution or sphericity were detected. For

acquisition, we ran a 2 (SC/YK) X 2 (highTA/lowTA) X 2

(initial block-A1/final block-A15) analysis of variance with

repeated measures on the last factor. For transfer, a 2 (SC/YK)

X 2 (highTA/lowTA) analysis of variance was used. To detect

whether participants showed better performance in the trials

with or without KR, we ran a 2 (KR trials/no-KR trials) X 2

(SC/YK) analysis of variance. To compare the levels of anxiety

with the frequency of KR requested in the SC groups during the

first and second halves of acquisition, a 2 (highTA/lowTA) X 2

(first half/second half) analysis of variance was carried out.

When appropriate, F-ratios involving repeated measures factors

were reported with the Greenhouse-Geisser df adjustment. Par-

tial eta-squared values (η2) were also reported to indicate effect

sizes for significant results. Follow-up testing was conducted

using Sidak post hoc procedures. For all analyses, alpha was set

at .05. The percentage of responses obtained in the question-

naire regarding good and bad performances from the SC and

YK conditions were also described.

Results

Figure 1 shows the mean values of points obtained by the

experimental groups on acquisition and transfer. A significant

effect for the main factor “Block” was found between A1 and

A15 [F(1, 22) = 15.78, p = .001; 2 = .42], but no significant

differences were detected for either the interaction “Group X

Block” or the main factor “Group” on acquisition and transfer.

Regarding the amount of KR requested on the first half of

acquisition, high-anxious participants requested more informa-

tion (170 KRs) than their low-anxious counterparts (65 KRs),

albeit the significance was marginal [F(2, 21) = 2.75, p = .069].

No difference in the amount of KR requested was detected

between high (170 KRs) and low (157 KRs) TA participants in

the second half of acquisition. Overall, participants asked for

KR after 562 out of 11,520 trials (4.88%), 4.07% in the first

and 5.68% in the second half.

With the purpose of determining whether the participants

who practiced under SC and YK conditions showed better re-

sults in trials after the presence or absence of KR, the sum of

each of these trials in the two acquisition halves were calculated.

Regarding trials after which KR was received in the first half of

acquisition, SC participants scored 59.1 points, whereas YK

participants scored 30.1 points; in the second half of acquisition,

SC participants obtained 89 points, while their YK counterparts

obtained 48.8 points. With respect to trials after which KR was

not received, SC participants achieved 234.9 points, whereas

YK ones scored 262.5 in the first half; SC participants obtained

274.9 points, whereas YK ones scored 277.4 points in the sec-

ond half.

It was also detected that SC participants scored higher than

YK participants in the first and second halves of acquisition

[F(1, 46) = 2.83; p = 0.06]. In contrast, no significant effects

were found for the no-KR trials. It is important to report that in

no-KR trials (25193 - 61% of all trials) both SC and YK condi-

tions had higher scores than in KR trials (5446 KRs - 39% of

all trials).

Regarding exclusively to those who SC their KR, 16 (67%)

R. M. BOKUMS ET AL.

408

Figure 1.

Average scores (X-axis) of the four experimental groups on acquisition (A1-A15) and transfer (T) (Y-axis).

reported requesting KR after good trials, while 18 (75%) re-

ported that they did not ask for feedback after bad trials.

Discussion

The results showed no significant interactions between TA

and SC-KR. This fact refutes the stated hypothesis that low-

anxious individuals who self-control KR would show enhanced

learning. Several studies have reported no differences between

high and low anxiety levels in response accuracy (Blankstein,

Flett, Boase, & Toner, 1990; Blankstein, Toner, & Flett, 1989;

Calvo, Alamo, & Ramos, 1990; Calvo & Ramos, 1989). The

lack of differences between SC and YK is quite surprising.

Considering that the overhead volleyball serve has a high

nominal difficulty, it may be that for tasks with high perceptual

and motor requirements, the engagement in active processes of

performance evaluation (i.e., elaborative encoding) is elicited

by both SC and externally controlled schedules of KR. It may

also be that the effects of SC are offset by the functional diffi-

culty of the task, that is, beginners performing a task with high

nominal difficulty. According to CPF (Guadagnoli & Lee,

2004), if the participants were experts or the task was of low

nominal difficult, the likelihood of facing an optimal level of

challenge during the process would be higher and, as a result,

learning would be maximized.

High-anxious individuals requested more KR than low-anx-

ious individuals. A plausible explanation for this finding is that

those who score high in TA, invest in extra processing re-

sources (Calvo & Ramos, 1989); that is, requesting more in-

formation to facilitate drawing attention to their inner resources

to cope with task demands (Jones, 1995; Jones & Swain, 1995;

Weinberg & Gould, 2011). With regard to SC participants,

two-thirds of them reported that KR was requested after per-

ceived successful trials (good), a typical finding in current ML

literature (Chiviacowsky, 2002, 2005, 2007; Chiviacowsky,

Godinho, & Tani, 2005; Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Medeiros, Kae-

fer, & Wally, 2008); this reinforces the importance of KR as a

tool to confirm a learner’s subjective evaluation of performance.

In addition, SC participants obtained more points than their YK

counterparts after serves followed by KR.

A central hypothesis of the CPF is that reduced KR is bene-

ficial to beginners when learning a task with low levels of

nominal difficulty, while frequent KR is beneficial to beginners

when learning a task with high levels of nominal difficulty

(Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004). It was thus expected that SC par-

ticipants would request frequent KR, but they asked for very

little augmented information (one KR at every 20 trials on av-

erage). Such a reduced KR schedule helps the development of

the learner’s autonomy via exploration of inherent feedback

(Schmidt & Lee, 2011; Magill, 2011). The reduced frequency

of KR requested by the SC participants of the current study is

in line with the pattern that has been reported in the ML litera-

ture (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2007, 2009).

The improvements throughout trials are crucial to quantify

the gains in performance and almost certainly can be inter-

preted as caused by motor learning (Lee, 2011; Schmidt & Lee,

2011). Our results showed that the amount of points in succes-

sive blocks decreased from the initial to the final acquisition

block. Moreover, other compelling evidence that learning oc-

curred is the fact that the transfer performances showed by the

experimental groups were similar to the performances showed

in the final acquisition block (Magill, 2011).

As a concluding remark, we would like to highlight that the

literature on anxiety has been differentiating effectiveness from

efficiency (Calvo & Ramos, 1989, 1990; Eysenck, 1979; Ey-

senck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo,

2007). While the first is associated with the quality of per-

formance, the latter relates to the relationship between the ef-

fectiveness of performance and the effort or resources spent.

Efficiency is thought to decrease as more resources are invested

to attain a certain level of performance. Given that the negative

effects of TA are greater on efficiency than on effectiveness, it

is also of great importance that future research includes vari-

ables that assess not only effectiveness, but also efficiency. For

example, self-preoccupation (or worry) is characterized by

concerns over evaluation, failure and expectations of aversive

R. M. BOKUMS ET AL.

consequences (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007)

and represents efficiency because it reduces storage and proc-

essing capacity and increments on-task effort.

REFERENCES

Biaggio, M. B., & Natalício, L. (2003). Manual do inventário de

ansiedade traço estado (IDATE). CEPA, Rio de Janeiro.

Brady, F. (2008). The contextual interference effect and sport skills.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 461-472.

doi:10.2466/pms.106.2.461-472

Calvo, M. G., & Ramos, P. M. (1989). Effects of test anxiety on motor

learning: The processing efficiency hypothesis. Anxiety Research, 2,

45-55. doi:10.1080/08917778908249325

Calvo, M. G., Alamo, L., & Ramos, P. M. (1990). Test anxiety, motor

performance and learning: Attentional and somatic interference.

Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 29-38.

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90165-N

Chiviacowsky, S., Godinho, M., & Tani, G. (2005). Self-controlled

knowledge of results: Effects of different schedules and task com-

plexity. Journal of H um an Mo ve me nt S tud ie s, 49, 277-296.

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it

enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it?

Research Quarterly for Exercise a n d Sp or t , 73, 408-415.

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is ef-

fective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quar-

terly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42-48.

doi:10.5641/027013605X13076330976713

Chiviacowksy, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials en-

hances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 40-

47.

Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Medeiros, F. L., Kaefer, A., & Wally, R.

(2008). Self-controlled feedback in 10-year old children: Higher

feedback frequencies enhance learning. Research Quarterly for Ex-

ercise and Sport, 79, 122-127.

doi:10.5641/193250308X13086753543176

Cristancho, S. M., Moussa, F., & Dubrowski, A. (2011). A frame-

work-based approach to designing simulation-augmented surgical

education and training programs. American Journal of Surgery, 202,

344-351. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.02.011

Descarreaux, M., Passmore, S. R., & Cantin, V. (2010). Head move-

ment kinematics during rapid aiming task performance in healthy and

neck-pain participants: The importance of optimal task difficulty.

Manual Therapy, 15, 445-450. doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.02.009

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: the

processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 409- 434.

doi:10.1080/02699939208409696

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007).

Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emo-

tion, 7, 336-353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336

Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human

performance. Orlando: Academic Press.

Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework

for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in mo-

tor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 212-224.

doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224

Guadagnoli, M., & Lindquist, K. (2007). Challenge point framework

and efficient learning of golf. International Journal of Sports Science

and Coaching, 2, 185-197. doi:10.1260/174795407789705505

Gofton, W. (2006). Factors in optimizing the learning environment for

surgical training. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 449,

100-107.

Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., & Phil, D. (2012). Theory and practice in the

design and conduct of graduate medical education. Academic Medi-

cine, 87, 25-33. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318238e069

Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A. Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cau-

raugh, H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness

through videotape replay and self-controlled learning environment.

Research Quarterly for Exercise a n d Sp or t , 68, 269-279.

Janelle, C. M., Kim, J., & Singer, R. N. (1995). Subject-controlled

performance feedback of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 81, 627-634. doi:10.2466/pms.1995.81.2.627

Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and

issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology,

86, 449-478. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02565.x

Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1995). Predisposition to experience debilitative

and facilitative anxiety in elite and nonelite performers. The Sport

Psychologist, 9, 201-211.

Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative feedback af-

fects motor skill learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 63, 738-749. doi:10.1080/17470210903111839

Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Hula, S. N. A., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G.,

Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning

in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech-

Language Pathology, 17, 277-298.

doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025)

Magill, R. (2011). Motor learning: Concepts and applications. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Moulton, C.-A.E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E.,

& Reznick, R. (2006). Teaching surgical skills: What kind of practice

makes perfect? A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Surgery,

244, 400-409.

Onla-or, S., & Winstein, C. J. (2008). Determining the optimal chal-

lenge point for motor skill learning in adults with moderately severe

Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22,

385-395. doi:10.1177/1545968307313508

Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Motor learning and per-

formance: A situation-based learning approach. Champaign, Human

Kinetics.

Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in theory and re-

search. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., &

Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise

psychology. Champaign, Human Kinetics.

Wrisberg, C. A. (2007). Sport skill instruction for coaches. Champaign,

Human Kinetics.

Wulf, G., & Toole, T. (1999). Physical assistance devices in complex

motor skill learning: Benefits of a self-controlled practice schedule.

Research Quarterly for Exercise a n d Sp or t , 70, 265-272.