The Effect of Task Constraint on Learning of Movement Pattern and Parameter during Observational Learning

Fazeli, Davoud; Moradi, Nahid

doi:10.22089/mbj.2016.863

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Davoud Fazeli ¹
Nahid Moradi ²

¹ PhD Student of Motor Behavior, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² M.Sc. Student of Motor Behavior, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2016.863

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to address the effect of task constraint on learning of movement pattern and parameter during observational learning. For this purpose 16 participants, all right-handed, were randomly divided into ball and no-ball groups. Both groups observed a point-light display of full body demonstration while one group had to throw a ball like the model (with task constraint) and the other had no information about the external goal of the task (without task constraint). Both groups performed 20 trials as acquisition, and one day later they completed 5 trials as retention. Movement kinematics were recorded to be compared with the model. Variability of intra-limb coordination and the peak wrist velocity difference in reference to the model were calculated. The results showed that in movement coordination the no-ball group performed more comparable to the model than ball group, but, in peak wrist velocity, the ball group was more comparable to the model. These results were observed both in acquisition and retention. A possible reason for these results could be the ball group’s ignoring of the movement pattern in order to achieve the external movement goal.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Motor learning

References

1. Breslin G, Hodges N J, Williams A M, Kremer J, Curran W. A comparison of intra-and inter-limb relative motion information in modelling a novel motor skill. Human Movement Science. 2006; 25(6): 753-66.

2. Williams A M, Davids K, Williams J G P. Visual perception and action in sport. First published. London. Taylor & Francis; 1999. p. 25-52.

3. Meltzoff A N, Moore M K. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science. 1977; 198(4312): 75-8.

4. Di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G. Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research. 1992; 91(1): 176-80.

5. Wohlschläger A, Gattis M, Bekkering H. Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2003; 358(1431): 501-15.

6. Bandura A, McClelland D C. Social learning theory. First published. New York. Grneral Learning Press. 1977. p. 1-40.

7. Scully D, Newell K. Observational-learning and the acquisition of motor-skills-toward a visual-perception perspective. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1985; 11(4): 169-86.

8. Hodges N J, Williams A M, Hayes S J, Breslin G. What is modelled during observational learning? Journal of Sports Sciences. 2007; 25(5): 531-45.

9. Bekkering H, Wohlschlager A, Gattis M. Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A. 2000; 53(1): 153-64.

10. Hayes S J, Ashford D, Bennett S J. Goal-directed imitation: The means to an end. Acta Psychologica. 2008; 127(2): 407-15.

11. Wild K S, Poliakoff E, Jerrison A, Gowen E. The influence of goals on movement kinematics during imitation. Experimental Brain Research. 2010; 204(3): 353-60.

12. Horn R R, Williams A M, Scott M A. Learning from demonstrations: The role of visual search during observational learning from video and point-light models. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2002; 20(3): 253-69.

13. Wild K S, Poliakoff E, Jerrison A, Gowen E. Goal-directed and goal-less imitation in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2012; 42(8): 1739-49.

14. Chiavarino C, Bugiani S, Grandi E, Colle L. Is automatic imitation based on goal coding or movement coding? Experimental Psychology. 2015. 60(3):213–25.

15. Hodges N J, Hayes S J, Breslin G, Williams A M. An evaluation of the minimal constraining information during observation for movement reproduction. Acta Psychologica. 2005; 119(3): 264-82.

16. Hayes S J, Hodges N J, Huys R, Williams A M. End-point focus manipulations to determine what information is used during observational learning. Acta Psychologica. 2007; 126(2): 120-37.

17. Al-Abood S A, Davids K, Bennett S J. Specificity of task constraints and effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners' search during skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2001; 33(3): 295-305.

18. Rumiati R, Tessari A. Imitation of novel and well-known actions. Experimental Brain Research. 2002; 142(3): 425-33.

19. Horn R R, Williams A M, Hayes S J, Hodges N J‌, Scott M A. Demonstration as a rate enhancer to changes in coordination during early skill acquisition. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2007; 25(5): 599-614.

20. Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics. 1973; 14(2): 201-11.

21. Scully D, Carnegie E. Observational learning in motor skill acquisition: A look at demonstrations. The Irish Journal of Psychology. 1998; 19(4): 472-85.

22. Sidaway B, Heise G, Schoenfelder Zohdi B. Quantifying the variability of angle-angle plots. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1995; 29(4): 181-97.

23. Breslin G, Hodges N J, Williams M A. Effect of information load and time on observational learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2009; 80(3): 480-90.

24. Winter D A. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Fourth Edition. Hobokrn. John Wiley & Sons; 2009. p. 53-75.

The Effect of Task Constraint on Learning of Movement Pattern and Parameter during Observational Learning

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 26January 2017Pages 17-34

Volume 8, Issue 26
January 2017
Pages 17-34