A Study Comparing the Effects of Types of Relative Frequency and Delay Internal of Knowledge of Results on Motor Learning

결과에 대한 지식의 상대적 빈도와 지연간격 유형이 운동학습에 미치는 영향 비교

  • Kim, Dae-Gyun (Dept. of Rehabilitation, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Cha, Seung-Kyu (Dept. of Rehabilitation, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Bum-Gyu (Dept. of Physical Therapy, Seoul Jungang Hospital) ;
  • An, Soo-Kyung (Dept. of Anatomy, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Jong-Man (Dept. of Rehabilitation, Seonam University)
  • 김대균 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 재활학과) ;
  • 차승규 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 재활학과) ;
  • 김범규 (서울 중앙병원 물리치료실) ;
  • 안수경 (연세의료원 해부학교실) ;
  • 김종만 (서남대학교 보건학부 재활학과)
  • Published : 1997.05.10

Abstract

Several studies have evaluated the effects of types of relative frequency and delay interval of knowledge of results(KR) on motor skill learning independently. The purpose of this study was to determine more effective types of KR relative frequency and KR delay interval for motor learning. Forty-six healthy subjects (15 female, 31 male) with no previous experience with this experiment participated. The subjects ranged in age from 20 to 29 years (mean=23.9, SD=0.474). All subjects were assigned to one of four groups: a high-instant group, a high-delay group, a low-instant group, and a low-delay group. During the acquisition phase, subjects practiced movements to a target (400 mm) with either a high (83%) or low (33%) KR relative frequency, and with either an instantaneous or delayed (after 8s) KR. Four groups were evaluated on retention (after 3min and 24hr) and transfer (450 mm) tests. The major findings were as follows: (1) there were no between-group differences in acquisition and short-term retention (p>0.05, (2) a low (33%) KR relative frequency during practice was as effective for learning as measured by both long-tenn retention and transfer tests, compared with high (83%) KR practice conditions (p<0.05), (3) delayed (8s) KR enhanced learning as measured by both long-term retention and transfer tests, compared with instantaneous KR practice conditions (p<0.05), and (4) there were no interactions between KR relative frequency and KR delay interval during acquisition, retention, and transfer phases. The results suggest that relatively less frequent and delayed KR are more effective types for motor learning than more frequent and instantaneous KR.

Keywords