Learner regulated knowledge of results during the acquisition of multiple timing goals
Abstract
The purpose of the present experiment was to examine the advantages of a learner controlled KR schedule during the acquisition of three novel sequential timing tasks. The self-regulated group requested KR when necessary during the acquisition period while participants in the yoked condition replicated the KR schedule of a self-regulated counterpart, without the choice. The self-regulated condition demonstrated superior performance in retention and transfer, with a relative KR frequency similar for all three sequences. Similar to Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2002), learners also demonstrated a preference for KR after perceived good trials, independent of defined task difficulty. Thus, the results extend previous research by suggesting a generalized learning strategy by performers acquiring multiple motor task goals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Groups with self-controlled feedback tend to receive feedback more after good trials than after poor trials compared with control groups.
“Groups with self-controlled feedback tend to receive feedback more after good trials (i.e., with smaller errors) than after poor trials compared with control groups (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002;Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Medeiros, Kaefer, & Tani, 2008;Patterson & Carter, 2010;Patterson, Carter, & Sanli, 2011).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Patterson & Carter, 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 102
- Authors
- Patterson, J. T., & Carter, M.
- Affiliations
- Brock University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Patterson, Jae T.
- Venue
- Human Movement Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 214-227
- ISSN
- 0167-9457 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2010024240
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 16.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Movement Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
- Keywords
- knowledge of results, motor learning, timing task, retention, transfer, feedback frequency, motor skill learning, perceived difficulty
- MeSH terms
- Cues, Feedback, Female, Goals, Humans, Knowledge of Results, Psychological, Learning, Male, Physical Stimulation, Time Factors, Time Perception, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
