Motor Behavior

Effect of Novice, Expert and Mixed Observational Models on Cognitive- Motor Task Learning

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Azad Islamic University of branch East Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor of Sport Psychology, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
The aim of this study was compared the effect of observation of novice, expert, and mixed models, in motor- cognitive task learning for 3-ball cascade juggle. The participants were 40 female students aged 19 to 25 who had never juggling. They were divided in to four matched groups after pre-test: novice model observation group, expert, mixed and physical practice group. Expert model observation group watched a video executing the skill by a skilled person. Novice model observation group watched a video executing the skill by a novice and mixed model watched both videos. The research was done in six weeks. Three phases were down, pree test, acquisition, retention and transfer. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA (P<0.05). There was used of mauchly's test of sphericity, Scheffe post hoc test, tukey test and greenhouse geisser test too. The result was show that novice model observation was better than other groups during the acquisition, retention and transfer phase but in the transfer test it was not significant. Finally, this research is show that the use of novice model is Beneficial for motor-cognitive skills learning.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Hayes, J.S & et al. Visual online control processes are acquired during observational practice. Acta Psychologica, 2013.143, 298-302.
  2. Larssen, B.C & et al. What and learn: Seeing is better than doing when acquiring consecutive motor tasks. Plos One, 2012. 7(6), 1-8.
  3. Ste-Marie & et al. Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: An applied model for the use of observation. Int Rev Sports Exe Psychol. 2012.5(2): 145-76.
  4. Higuchi, S & et al. Imitation and observational learning of hand actions: Prefrontal involvement and connectivity. Neuroimage, 2012. 59, 1668-83.
  5. Hayes & et al. General motor representations are developed during action-observation. Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jul; 204(2):199-206.
  6. McCullagh, P., & Weiss, M.R. Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performanceand psychological responses. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology. 2001; pp. 205-238. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Blandin, Y. & et al. Cognitive processes underlying observational learning of motor skills. Q J Exper Psychol. 1999. 52, 957-79.
  8. Blandin, Y. & et al. on the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning. J Mot Behav. 1994. 26: 18-26.
  9. Blandin, Y., & Proteau, L. On the cognitive basis of observational learning: Development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. The Q J Exper Psychol. 2000.53(A): 846-67.
  10. Edwards, H. E. Motor control and learning: From theory to practice. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Publisher: Yolanda Cossio Acquisitions Editor; 2011
  11. Scully, D. M., & Newell, K. M. Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills: Toward a visual perception perspective. J Human Mov Stud. 1985.11: 169-86.
  12. Magill.R.M, Motor learning, Concepts and Application, 6th edition, Mc Graw-Hill publisher; 2007.
  13. Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977.
  14. Sheffield, F.N. Theoretical considerations in the learning of complex sequential tasks from demonstrations and practice. In A.A. Lumsdaine (Ed.) Student response in programmed instruction. 1961. (pp. 13-32). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  15. Wulf, G., & Mornell, A. Insights about practice from the perspective of motor learning: a Music Performance Res. 2008.2: 1-25.
  16. Adams, J. A. Use of the model’s knowledge of results to increase the observer’s performance. J Hum Movement Stud. 1986. 12: 89-98.
  17. Hayes, SJ. Ashford, D., Bennett, SJ. Goal-directed imitation: The means to an end. Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. PsycINFO classification, 2008, 2330; 2340; 2343.
  18. Horn, R. R & et al. Visual search and coordination changes in response to video and point-light demonstra-tions without KR motion. J Mot Behav. 2005. 37: 265-75.
  19. Hatami farzaneh. Investigation of skill surface on acquisition and retention of Volleyball simple service, Master thesis. School of sport sciene and physical education, Shahid Beheshti universty intehran; 2003.
  20. Ghobadi Neda., & et al. comparing the effects of and expert models observation on performance and learning of futsal side foot pass. Eur J Exp Biology. 2013. 3(1):508-12. 
  21. Buchanan, J. J, & Dean, N. J. Specificity in practice benefits learning in novice models and variability in demonstration benefits observational practice. 2010. Psychol Res.74:313–26.
  22. Arabameri. E., & et al. Effects of level model skill on the acquisition, retention and transfer of a motor skill learning. J Development Mot leaning. 2004. Volume 21:123-41. (In Persian).
  23. Hashemi Somayeh Sadata, Farokhi Ahmad, Effect of Model's Skill Level on Development of Capability Error Detection and Correction Mechanism. RRAMT 2014.40 (4): 305-17.
  24. Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. Observation learning of a motor task: who and when? Exp Brain Res. 2013 Aug; 229 (1):125-37.
  25. Andrieux Mathieu. Proteau Luc. Mixed observation favors motor learning through better estimation of the model’s performance, Exp Brain Res. 2014 Oct; 232(10):3121-32.
  26. Rohbanfard H, Proteau L. Learning through observation: acombination of expert and novice models favors learning. Exp Brain Res. 2011. 215:183–97.
  27. Meaney, K., Griffin, L.K., & Hart, M. The effect of model similarity on girls’ motor performance. J TEACH PHYS EDUC. 2005.24: 165-78.
  28. Hirose T., & et al. Effectiveness of the use of a learning model and concentrated schedule in ob servational learning of a new bimanual coordination pattern. Int J Sport Health, Sci.2004. 2: 97-104.
  29. Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU, Zihlman K, Wright DL. Observational pract-ice of relative but not absolute motion features in a singlelimb multi-joint coordination task. Exp Brain Res. 2008. 191:157–69.
  30. Lee, T.D., & White, M.A. Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 1990. 9:349–67.
  31. Martens R, Burwitz L, Zuckerman J. Modeling effects on motor-performance. Res Q. 1976. 47:277–91.
  32. Welsher; McMaster. The Impact of Variability in Observational Practice on Skill Learning: Theoretical and Applied Considerations. Copyright by Arthur Michael Welsher. September. McMaster University (Kinesiology) Hamilton, Ontario; 2015.
  33. Al-Abood, S., & et al. Effects of manipulating relative and absolute motion information dur-ing observational learning of an aiming task. J Mot Behav. 2001. 33(3):295-305.
  34. Ashford, D., Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. Observational modeling effects for movement dynamics and movement outcome measures across differing task constraints: A meta-analysis. J Moto Behav. 2006. 38: 185-205.
  35. Suzande pour, R., & et al. The comparison of Two Methods of Self- Modeling and Video Demonstration of an Expert on the Acquisition and retention of Volleyball Serve skill. J Development Mot leaning. 2009. Volume 1: 61- 77. (In Persian).
  36. Hebert, E.P., & Landin, D. Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback in tennis skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994. 65: 250- 7.
  37. McCullagh, P., & Caird, J.K. Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. J Mov. 1990. 18: 107-16.
  38. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ. Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest 1994. 46(3):328-44.
  39. Weinberg, R., & Weigland, D. Goal setting in sport and exercise: A reaction to Locke. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1993, 15, 88–96.
Motor Behavior
Volume 10, Issue 33
Fall 2018
October 2019
Pages 35-50

  • Receive Date 08 June 2016
  • Revise Date 07 November 2016
  • Accept Date 12 November 2016

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us