Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner's performance: A replication and extension of Chiviacowsky & Wulf (2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-controlled feedback schedules are more effective for motor learning compared to yoked schedules. These advantages have been attributed to motivational and/or cognitive processes with many researchers adopting the motivational perspective in recent years. However, Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) found that retention but not transfer performance could be equally optimised when the feedback decision is made before or after a trial. Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) concluded that motivational factors resulted in the similar retention performance, but the learning advantages of deciding after a trial as evidenced in transfer was hypothesised to emerge from cognitive processes. Here, we tested whether a positive additive effect of motivational and cognitive processes is a viable hypothesis for the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback. To this end, we included a Self-Both group that was able to request feedback before a trial but could then change or stay with their original choice after the trial. We also replicated the Self-Before and Self-After groups used in Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) whose decision was restricted to only before or after a trial, respectively. Corresponding Yoked groups were included for each Self-controlled group. Participants practiced a target aiming task whereby a slider was propelled down a track to a target distance with their non-dominant hand in the absence of vision. Contrary to the additive hypothesis, the Self-Both group did not outperform the other Self-controlled groups. Instead, the Self-After and Self-Both groups were not significantly different, but both demonstrated superior learning than the Self-Before group and their respective Yoked counterparts ( p ’s < .05). These findings indicate that the cognitive processes engaged during practice when participants are permitted to make their feedback decision following motor performance resulted in superior learning. These findings suggest that cognitive rather than motivational processes may have greater relative contributions to the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules. Acknowledgments: Funded by NSERC
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".