Does learning a skill with the expectation of teaching it impair the skill's execution under psychological pressure if the skill is learned with analogy instructions?

OBJECTIVE: Having learners practice a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it (versus an expectation of being tested on it) has been revealed to enhance skill learning. However, this improvement in skill performance is lost when the skill must be performed under psychological pressure due to 'choking under pressure.' The present study will investigate whether this choking effect is caused by an accrual of declarative knowledge during skill practice and could be prevented if a technique (analogy instructions) to minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge during practice is employed. DESIGN: We will use a 2 (Expectation: teach/test) x 2 (Instruction: analogy/explicit) x 2 (Posttest: high-pressure/low-pressure) mixed-factor design, with repeated measures on the last factor. METHODS: A minimum of 148 participants will be quasi-randomly assigned (based on sex) to one of four groups. Participants in the teach/analogy and teach/explicit groups will practice golf putting with the expectation of teaching putting to another participant, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. Participants in the test/analogy and test/explicit groups will practice golf putting with the expectation of being tested on their putting, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. The next day all participants will complete low- and high-pressure putting posttests, with their putting accuracy serving as the dependent variable.

OPTIMAL theory's claims about motivation lack evidence in the motor learning literature.

Motivation is commonly recognized by researchers and practitioners as a key factor for motor learning. The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016) claims that practice conditions that enhance learners' expectancies for future successful outcomes or that are autonomy supportive are motivating, thus leading to better learning. To examine the current evidence of the association between motivation and motor learning, we searched the literature for studies that manipulated expectancies and/or autonomy support. Specifically, our goals were to assess whether these manipulations resulted in group differences in motivation and, if so, whether increased motivation was associated with learning advantages. Results showed that out of 166 experiments, only 21% (n = 35) included at least one measure of motivation, even though this is the main factor proposed by OPTIMAL theory to explain the learning benefits of these manipulations. Among those, only 23% (n = 8) found group-level effects on motivation, suggesting that these manipulations might not be as motivating as expected. Of the eight experiments that found a group-level effect on motivation, five also observed learning benefits, offering limited evidence that when practice conditions increase motivation, learning is more likely to occur. Overall, the small number of studies assessing motivation precludes any reliable conclusions on the association between motivation and motor learning from being drawn. Together, our results question whether manipulations implemented in the research lines supporting OPTIMAL theory are indeed motivating and highlight the lack of sufficient evidence in these literatures to support that increased motivation benefits motor learning.

Conquering pressure! The effects of mild-anxiety training on motor performance under pressure during early motor learning.

We conceptually replicated the one previous study (see record 2009-13549-001) revealing that individuals who practice a motor skill under psychological pressure (anxiety training-AT) avoid performance deterioration when exposed to higher levels of pressure. We used a >3× larger sample size than the original study and attempted to shed light on mechanisms whereby AT may promote performance under pressure by measuring variables related to three theories of choking under pressure: attentional control theory (ACT), reinvestment theory, and the biopsychosocial model (BPSM) of challenge and threat. Eighty-four participants practiced 300 golf putts over 2 days with mild psychological pressure manipulations (AT group) or no pressure manipulations (control group). On the third day, all participants completed putting posttests with no pressure manipulations, mild pressure manipulations, or high-pressure manipulations. We had participants report their mental effort, movement reinvestment, and perceived challenge/threat after each posttest to investigate ACT, reinvestment theory, and the BPSM of challenge and threat, respectively. Results showed the AT group maintained their performance across posttests, whereas the control group performed worse under pressure. Additionally, results indicated that AT moderated changes in mental effort and movement reinvestment during pressure, although neither mechanism mediated the relationship between AT and performance under pressure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Does learning a skill with the expectation of teaching it impair the skill's execution under psychological pressure if the skill is learned with analogy instructions?

OBJECTIVE: Having learners practice a motor skill with the expectation of teaching it (versus an expectation of being tested on it) has been revealed to enhance skill learning. However, this improvement in skill performance is lost when the skill must be performed under psychological pressure due to 'choking under pressure.' The present study investigated whether this choking effect is caused by an accrual of declarative knowledge during skill practice and could be prevented if a technique (analogy instructions) to minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge during practice is employed. DESIGN: We used a 2 (Expectation: teach/test) x 2 (Instructions: analogy/explicit) x 2 (Posttest: low-pressure/high-pressure) mixed-factor design, with repeated measures on the last factor. METHODS: One-hundred fifty-six participants were quasi-randomly assigned (based on sex) to one of four groups. Participants in the teach/analogy and teach/explicit groups practiced golf putting with the expectation of teaching putting to another participant, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. Participants in the test/analogy and test/explicit groups practiced golf putting with the expectation of being tested on their putting, and analogy instructions or explicit instructions, respectively. The next day all participants completed low- and high-pressure putting posttests, with their putting accuracy serving as the dependent variable. RESULTS: We observed an Expectation x Instructions × Posttest interaction, such that a main effect of expectation was found in the low-pressure posttest, with the teach group exhibiting superior accuracy, and an Expectation × Instructions interaction was revealed for the high-pressure posttest. This interaction resulted from the teach group showing greater accuracy than the test group exclusively when receiving analogy instructions. CONCLUSION: Results show that participants who practiced with the expectation of teaching exhibited superior learning and indicate that they choked under pressure likely due to their accrual of declarative knowledge during practice, since the choking effect was prevented by having them practice with analogy instructions. Accordingly, having learners practice with the expectation of teaching and techniques that minimize the accrual of declarative knowledge is recommended.

That looks easy! Evidence against the benefits of an easier criterion of success for enhancing motor learning.

OPTIMAL theory predicts providing learners with a relatively easier criterion of success during practice enhances motor learning through increased self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and intrinsic motivation. However, mixed results in the literature suggest this enhancement effect may be moderated by the number of successes achieved by learners practicing with the difficult criterion. To investigate this possibility, we manipulated quantity of practice to affect the absolute number of successes achieved by learners practicing with different success criteria. Eighty participants were divided into four groups and performed 50 or 100 trials of a mini-shuffleboard task. Groups practiced with either a large or a small zone of success surrounding the target. Learning was assessed 24 h after acquisition with retention and transfer tests. In terms of endpoint accuracy and precision, there were no learning or practice performance benefits of practicing with an easier criterion of success, regardless of the number of trials. This absence of a criterion of success effect was despite the efficacy of our manipulation in increasing the number of trials stopping within the zone of success, self-efficacy, perceptions of competence, and, for participants with 100 trials, intrinsic motivation. An equivalence test indicated that the effect of criterion of success was small, if existent. Moreover, at the individual level, intrinsic motivation did not predict posttest or acquisition performance. There were no benefits of easing the criterion of success on pressure, effort, accrual of explicit knowledge, or conscious processing. These data challenge key tenets of OPTIMAL theory and question the efficacy of easing criterion of success for motor learning.

Relationship between reward-related brain activity and opportunities to sit.

The present study tested whether energy-minimizing behaviors evoke reward-related brain activity that promotes the repetition of these behaviors via reinforcement learning processes. Fifty-eight healthy young adults in a standing position performed a task where they could earn a reward either by sitting down or squatting while undergoing electroencephalographic (EEG) recording. Reward-prediction errors were quantified as the amplitude of the EEG-derived reward positivity. Results showed that reward positivity was larger on reward versus no reward trials, confirming the validity of our paradigm to measure evoked reward-related brain activity. However, results showed no evidence that sitting (versus standing and squatting) trials led to larger reward positivity. Moreover, we found no evidence suggesting that this effect was moderated by typical physical activity, physical activity on the day of the study, or energy expenditure during the experiment. However, at the behavioral level, results showed that the probability of choosing the stimulus more likely to lead to sitting than standing increased as the number of trials increased. In addition, results revealed that the probability of changing the selected stimulus was higher when the previous trial was a stand trial relative to a sit trial. In sum, neural results showed no evidence supporting the theory that opportunities to minimize energy expenditure are rewarding. However, behavioral findings suggested participants tend to choose the less effortful behavioral alternative and were therefore consistent with the theory of effort minimization (TEMPA).

Self-Controlled Feedback and Learner Impulsivity in Sequential Motor Learning.

Many studies have attributed self-controlled feedback benefits associated with motor learning to learners' greater information processing during practice. However, individual learner characteristics like their impulsivity can also influence how people engage cognitively during learning. We investigated possible dissociations between the types of interaction in self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) and learner impulsivity levels in learning a sequential motor task. Ninety volunteers responded to the self-restraint section of the Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale, and those 60 participants with the highest ( n = 30) and lowest ( n = 30) impulsivity scores practiced a motor task involving sequential pressing of four keys in predetermined absolute and relative times. We further divided participants into four experimental groups by assigning the high- and low-impulsivity groups to two forms of KR-self-controlled absolute and yoked. Study results showed no interaction effect between impulsivity and self-controlled KR, and, contrary to expectation, self-controlled KR did not benefit learning, independently of impulsivity. However, low-impulsivity participants performed better than high-impulsivity participants on the absolute dimension of the transfer task, while high-impulsivity learners were better at the relative dimension. Cognitive characteristics of automatic and reflexive processing were expressed by the strategies used to direct attention to relative and absolute task dimensions, respectively. Low-impulsivity learners switched their attention to both dimensions at the end of practice, while high-impulsivity learners did not switch their attention or directed it only to the relative dimension at the end of the practice. These results suggest that the cognitive styles of high- and low-impulsive learners differentially favor learning distinct dimensions of a motor task, regardless of self-controlled KR.

Association Between the Catechol-O-Methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met Polymorphism and Manual Performance Asymmetries.

Within the cognitive domain, neuroscience and cognitive psychology researchers have investigated the relationship between handedness and cognitive skills. However, there have been few studies of the three-way association between manual asymmetry, its genetic components, and cognition even though this line of research could further an understanding of asymmetry. One enzyme involved in cognitive functions related to the dopaminergic system and to the prefrontal cortex is the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), and it has a trimodal activity distribution in the human population due to its functional polymorphism known as Val158Met. This study investigated whether this COMT polymorphism is associated with asymmetries in the performance of a manual dexterity task. Forty-two right-handed undergraduate students ( Mage = 25.12, SD = 5.84; 15 women, 27 men) performed two trials each of place and remove conditions of the Grooved Pegboard Test with each hand (right and left), counterbalancing the order of the initial or starting hand. We calculated the mean time to perform the task for both hands on both trials and found, as hypothesized, that the Met/Met group gave a more asymmetrical performance than the Val/Met group under the place condition because dopamine levels reduced flexible behavior for the Val/Met group. We suspect that the place condition requires greater interhemispheric connectivity, as it requires a greater cognitive flexibility, and highly asymmetrical individuals are said to be less flexible. The findings of this study suggest a significant association between the COMT polymorphism and manual asymmetry in healthy populations.