Observational vs coaching feedback on non-dominant whole-body motor skill performance - application to technique training.

We studied the effect of peer- and self-observational feedback versus coaching feedback during technique training on performance in competitive adolescent cross-country skiers. Fifty-four skiers (14.3 ± 0.6 years) were divided into a control group and three intervention groups (dyad practice, video, or coaching feedback), which practiced in the asymmetrical uphill sub-technique G2 on one side (non-dominant side), but not the other (dominant side) for 6 × 30 min over a 5 weeks period, on roller skis outdoors. High-speed performance and skiing economy were assessed on a roller ski treadmill before and after the intervention, and a questionnaire was answered post-intervention. The video feedback (p = .025, d = .65) and coaching feedback (p = .007, d = .89) groups improved high-speed performance during the intervention and an ANCOVA showed a tendency for different change scores between interventions (F3,49  = 2.5, p = .068, η p 2  = .134), with a difference between the coaching feedback and dyad practice (p = .05). No change was seen in skiing economy in any group. Coaching feedback ranked higher on enjoyment compared with dyad practice (p < .001) and led to higher self-perception of improved technique compared with the control group (p = .038). Overall, feedback from a competent coach seems better than observation for improving performance in young athletes, although self-observation through video with attentional cues seems a promising tool for increasing individual feedback when coaching large groups.

A literature review on observational learning for medical motor skills and anesthesia teaching.

Motor skill practice is very important to improve performance of medical procedures and could be enhanced by observational practice. Observational learning could be particularly important in the medical field considering that patients' safety prevails over students' training. The mechanism of observational learning is based on the mirror neuron system, originally discovered in the monkey pre-motor cortex. Today we know that humans have a similar system, and its role is to understand and reproduce the observed actions of others. Many studies conclude that humans are able to plan and to make movements based on visual information by mapping a representation of observed actions, especially when the motor system is committed to do it. Moreover most researchers considered observational learning effective for complex skills, such as medical procedures. Additionally, observational learning could play a relevant role during anesthesia training since the learner works in pairs most of the time (dyad practice). Some teaching approaches should be taken into consideration: an implicit engagement of the observer motor system is required, immediate feedback seems to have an important effect, and a combination of observational and physical practice could be better than physical practice alone. In an environment where effectiveness and efficacy are essential, observational learning seems to fit well.

"You're wrong, I'll switch, I'm wrong, I'll stay": How task-switching strategies are modulated by a partner in a multi-task learning protocol.

Individuals given control over practice variables make practice decisions based on their current performance. When individuals practice in pairs, the question as to if and how a partner's performance impacts these decisions is of theoretical and practical interest. Here, we evaluated this question in a multi-task learning protocol, where individuals and dyads practiced three, differently timed keystroke sequences. Dyad participants alternated turns with a partner so we could study the immediate consequences of the partner's performance on practice choice. Only one of the partners had choice over the sequence order, the other partner practiced the sequences in either a predetermined blocked or random order. Practice with a partner that had a random-schedule promoted more task-switching in the other partner and had some benefit for retention accuracy. Distinct "own-error" and "partner-error" switching strategies were evidenced, with partners choosing to repeat the same sequence on their next turn when they performed poorly or when their partner performed well. These data show that an individual's practice decisions are influenced by their social context, particularly the practice schedule and patterns of errors in a partner's performance.

Manipulations to practice organization of golf putting skills through interleaved matched or mismatched practice with a partner.

There is some evidence that alternating physical and observational practice with a partner for the same skill can benefit learning compared to practice alone. What has not been studied is whether a partner's interleaved practice impacts multi-skill learning, when the partner either matches or mismatches their partner's skill. Here we manipulated partners' practice schedules of two golf putting skills. Partners practiced the same ("matched") or different skills in alternation ("mismatched"). Based on previous research where interleaved demonstrations have induced beneficial contextual interference effects, we hypothesized that mismatching a partner on consecutive trials should also promote a similar type of interference in practice, which ultimately aids learning. A third control group was tested, where only one partner practiced while the other observed. All groups practiced for two days, with individual retention tests at the start of day 2 and one week later. Taking turns practicing and observing a partner did not benefit learning compared to the control, pure physical practice group and the matched and mismatched groups did not differ in outcomes. There was, however, evidence that partners were adapting their actions (i.e., compensating for over or undershooting of the target) based on the shots of their partner, in a similar manner to how they were adapting to their own errors. Thus, although partners were influencing each other's performance, it was not ultimately to the benefit (or cost) of overall learning. Partner-mismatching of skills through alternating practice was not sufficient to promote interference in practice and ultimately promote learning.