Cited by 29Motor Control and AdaptationSport Psychology and PerformanceVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Self-regulated frequency of augmented information in skill learning.

Patterson, Jae T., Lee, Timothy D.·2010·Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale

Abstract

The authors examined the effects of self-regulating task information, identical in content, either before (proactive) or after (retroactive) a motor action. Participants were required to learn unique typographical script used to enter data into a personal data assistant. Consistent with previous findings, presenting task information proactively during acquisition facilitated performance, but presenting task information retroactively resulted in superior learning as measured in retention tests. However, those who self-regulated proactive task information demonstrated learning that was equivalent to those who received retroactive task information. These results suggest that when task information is equated, the learning benefits associated with self-regulation are independent of the timing of when the augmented information is made available during practise.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0016269

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In a Graffiti language learning task, learners allowed to decide when to view the correct pairing and viewing duration outperformed yoked counterparts.

    “In a study using a Graffiti language learning task, which involved entering symbols into a personal digital assistant when prompted by the English-script cue, learners allowed to decide when they wanted to view the correct pairing of the English cue and respective symbol, as well as the viewing duration, before entering the symbol, outperformed their yoked counterparts (Patterson & Lee, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patterson, J. T., & Lee, T. D.
Affiliations
Brock University (CA)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
Published
2010-03
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
33-40
ISSN
  • 1196-1961 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-7290
OpenAlex
W2007374044
Cited by
29
References
5
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
self-regulation, skill acquisition, retention, motor learning, personal digital assistants
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cues, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Retention, Psychology, Social Control, Informal, 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