The influence of kinematic verses outcome instructions and feedback on retention and transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both movement outcomes and the quality of movement can be influenced by instructions and feedback provided to a learner during acquisition of a motor task (see Wulf & Prinz, 2001 for review). Typically, an external focus of attention (a focus on the effects of an action) results in a performance advantage when compared to an internal focus of attention (a focus on the body’s movements). The purpose of the present experiment was to examine the influence of kinematic (velocity) and outcome (movement time) instructions and feedback on performance in acquisition, retention, and transfer. Two groups, differing only in the instructions and visual feedback given (velocity or movement time) were tasked with learning to slide a wooden block along a portion of a fixed track (40cm) at either a constant velocity or in a goal MT, resulting in an identical movement. We hypothesized that kinematic instructions and feedback would induce an internal focus of attention while outcome instructions and feedback would induce an external focus of attention. No differences between groups were revealed for the acquisition period. The group that received kinematic instructions and feedback performed with more error than the group that received outcome instructions and feedback in block two of the retention test and in block one of the transfer test. These results provided evidence for kinematic instructions inducing an internal focus of attention, and consequently, poorer learning.Acknowledgments: This study was supported 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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".