Download
feedback n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Feedback PowerPoint Presentation

Feedback

208 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Feedback

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Feedback From bandwidths onwards

  2. First, the guidance hypothesis • Remember the guidance hypothesis? • Usually examined with simple button tasks • Some others have tried different tasks now...

  3. Guidance and bimanual coordination • Task layout...

  4. Guidance and bimanual coordination • Feedback types...

  5. Guidance and bimanual coordination • Results... • Guidance hypothesis supported • Also, specificity of practice supported for continuous but not discrete feedback. Feedback good Feedback bad! Feedback good

  6. Guidance and driving • A far cry from a button and a barrier...

  7. Guidance and driving • Task... Feedback bad!

  8. Guidance and driving • Measures... Feedback bad!

  9. Guidance and driving • Results... Seems to suggest maladaptive short term corrections Feedback good Feedback no good

  10. Bandwidths and driving • Similar task, but with some problems fixed

  11. Bandwidths and driving • Similar task, but with some problems fixed • Now use a simulator, rather than the “real thing”

  12. Bandwidths and driving • Groups: Basically, the feedback used is now vibrations of the car seat, applied either when within or outside of a fixed distance from the center lane There are also a control group and a “realistic” group

  13. Bandwidths and driving • Results: Seems conventional BW feedback works quite well.

  14. Self-controlled feedback • Relationship to bandwidth feedback • Providing guidance when thought to be most effective • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) • Manipulation: • Choose whether you got feedback on a trial • Some choose before the trial, some choose after • What difference would this make?

  15. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) • Task: Can err in proportions and/or in absolute times

  16. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) • Results – performance quality Main differences in transfer

  17. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) • Results – when do they choose to receive feedback? Seems feedback is chosen after “good” trials

  18. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007)

  19. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) • Manipulation: receive feedback after good or poor trials • Task: beanbag toss to target, 60 trials practice, 10 trials test • Feedback: (e.g.) -90, +70

  20. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) • Results - accuracy

  21. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky et al. (2008)

  22. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) • task

  23. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) • results significant Not significant

  24. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) • More KR vs. less KR • Same task as C et al 2008. • All participants do 60 trials • Form groups after practice – based on proportion of feedback requested. • Who retains the task the best?

  25. Self-controlled feedback • Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) • Results: Basically a warning that some kids might not request enough feedback – needs to be used with education in mind!

  26. Motivational factors – “good trials” • All the focus on “good trials” gets folk thinking of motivational effects of feedback (rather than simple error correction...

  27. Motivational factors – “good trials” • Badami et al. (2011) • Same manipulation as C & W (2007)

  28. Motivational factors – “ability” • Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009) Some are told the task reflects an inherent ability, some that it is an acquirable skill

  29. Motivational factors – “ability” • Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009)

  30. Motivational factors – “fake feedback” • Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)

  31. Motivational factors – “fake feedback” • Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)