Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Mixed observation favors motor learning through better estimation of the model’s performance

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Observation contributes to motor learning. It was recently demonstrated that the observation of both a novice and an expert model (mixed observation) resulted in better learning of a complex spatio-temporal task than the observation of either a novice or an expert model alone. In the present study, we sought to determine whether the advantage of mixed observation resulted from the development of a better error detection mechanism. The results revealed that mixed observation resulted in a better estimation of the model’s performance than that with other regimens of observation. The results also suggest that observational learning is improved when observation with knowledge of the results (KR) is followed by an observation phase without KR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Specifically, the data were analyzed by an ANOVA contrasting five groups: control group in experiment 1 (n = 16), control group in experiment 2 (n = 16), observers of novice and expert models in experiment 1 (n = 32), CP + E and C − PE groups in experiment 2 (n = 32), and the mixed observation group in experiment 1 (n = 16). The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group, F (4, 107) = 29.14, p < .001, η 2p  = .52. The results of the post hoc comparisons can be summarized as follows: control experiment 1 = control experiment 2 (p = 0.95) > C + PE/C − PE (p < 0.001) = O2N/O2E (p = 0.32) > MO (p < 0.05).

References

  • Adams JA (1986) Use of the model’s knowledge of results to increase the observer’s performance. J Hum Mov Stud 12:89–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • A-Abood SA, Davids KF, Bennett SJ (2001) Specificity of task constraints and effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners’ search during skill acquisition. J Motor Behav 33:295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrieux M, Proteau L (2013) Observation learning of a motor task: who and when? Exp Brain Res 229:125–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Badets A, Blandin Y, Wright DL, Shea CH (2006) Error detection processes during observational learning. Res Q Exerc Sport 77:177–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bird G, Heyes C (2005) Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:262–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Black CB, Wright DL (2000) Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production? Res Q Exerc Sport 71:331–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y (1994) Processus cognitifs impliqués lors de l’apprentissage de tâches de synchronisation spatio-temporelle sous différentes conditions de pratique et d’observation d’un sujet modèle (Thèse de doctorat inédite). [Cognitive processes put into play during the learning of a spatiotemporal timing task through different regimens of practice or observation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)] Université de Montréal

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L (2000) On the cognitive basis of observational learning: development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. Q J Exp Psychol A 53:846–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blandin Y, Proteau L, Alain C (1994) On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning. J Motor Behav 26:18–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown LE, Wilson ET, Obhi SS, Gribble PL (2010) Effect of trial order and error magnitude on motor learning by observing. J Neurophysiol 104:1409–1416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR et al (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13:400–404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JJ, Dean NJ (2010) Specificity in practice benefits learning in novice models and variability in demonstration benefits observational practice. Psychol Res 74:313–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU, Zihlman K, Wright DL (2008) Observational practice of relative but not absolute motion features in a single-limb multi-joint coordination task. Exp Brain Res 191:157–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham G, Wond JD, Tang M, Gribble PL, Goodale MA (2013) Observing object lifting errors modulates cortico-spinal excitability and improves object lifting performance. Cortex. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.07.004

  • Carroll WR, Bandura A (1982) The role of visual monitoring in observational learning of action patterns: making the unobservable observable. J Motor Behav 14:153–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll WR, Bandura A (1990) Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: a causal analysis. J Motor Behav 22:85–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cisek P, Kalaska JF (2004) Neural correlates of mental rehearsal in dorsal premotor cortex. Nature 431:993–996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross ES, Kraemer DJM, Hamilton AFD, Kelley WM, Grafton ST (2009) Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cereb Cortex 19:315–326

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Decety J, Grezes J, Costes N et al (1997) Brain activity during observation of actions: Influence of action content and subject’s strategy. Brain 120:1763–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dushanova J, Donoghue J (2010) Neurons in primary motor cortex engaged during action observation. Eur J Neurosci 31:386–398

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari M (1996) Observing the observer: self-regulation in the observational learning of motor skills. Dev Rev 16:203–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey SH, Gerry VE (2006) Modulation of neural activity during observational learning of actions and their sequential orders. J Neurosci 26:13194–13201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Action representation and the inferior parietal lobule. Common Mech Percept Action 19:334–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton ST, Fadiga L, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Promotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage 6:231–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes SJ, Elliott D, Bennett SJ (2010) General motor representations are developed during action-observation. Exp Brain Res 204:199–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry FM (1975) Absolute error vs E in target accuracy. J Motor Behav 7:227–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes CM, Foster CL (2002) Motor learning by observation: evidence from a serial reaction time task. Q J Exp Psychol A 55:593–607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges NJ, Chua R, Franks IM (2003) The role of video in facilitating perception and action of a novel coordination movement. J Motor Behav 35:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges NJ, Williams AM, Hayes SJ, Breslin G (2007) What is modelled during observational learning? J Sport Sci 25:531–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilner JM, Neal A, Weiskopf N, Friston KJ, Frith CD (2009) Evidence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal gyrus. J Neurosci 29:10153–10159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, White MA (1990) Influence of an unskilled models practice schedule on observational motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 9:349–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ (1994) Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest 46:328–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens R, Burwitz L, Zuckerman J (1976) Modeling effects on motor-performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 47:277–291

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Caird JK (1990) Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. J Hum Mov Stud 18:107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Meyer KN (1997) Learning versus correct models: influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Res Q Exerc Sport 68:56–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Weiss MR, Ross D (1989) Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: an integrated approach. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 17:475–513

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhof NN, Wiggett AJ, Diedrichsen J, Tipper SP, Downing PE (2010) Surface-based information mapping reveals crossmodal vision-action representations in human parietal and occipitotemporal cortex. J Neurophysiol 104:1077–1089

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock BJ, Lee TD (1992) Effects of the model’s skill level on observational motor learning. Res Q Exerc Sport 63:25–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rohbanfard H, Proteau L (2011) Learning through observation: a combination of expert and novice models favors learning. Exp Brain Res 215:183–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt RA, Lee TD (2011) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 4th edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully DM, Newell KM (1985) Observational-learning and the acquisition of motor-skills: toward a visual-perception perspective. J Hum Mov Stud 11:169–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000) Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. J Motor Behav 32:27–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ste-Marie DM, Law B, Rymal AM, Jenny O, Hall C, McCullagh P (2012) Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the use of observation. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 5:145–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt S, Thomaschke R (2007) From visuo-motor interactions to imitation learning: behavioural and brain imaging studies. J Sport Sci 25:497–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks DL, Choi J (1992) Modelling the perceptual component of a coincident-timing skill: the influence of frequency of demonstration. J Hum Mov Stud 23:201–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir PL, Leavitt JL (1990) Effects of models skill level and models knowledge of results on the performance of a dart throwing task. Hum Mov Sci 9:369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright D, Li Y, Coady W (1997) Cognitive processes related to contextual interference and observational learning: a replication of Blandin, Proteau, and Alain (1994). Res Q Exerc Sport 68:106–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf G, Mornell A (2008) Insights about practice from the perspective of motor learning: a review. Music Perform Res 2:1–25

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Discovery Grant (L.P.) provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de kinésiologie, Université de Montréal, Station Downtown, P.O. Box 6128, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Mathieu Andrieux & Luc Proteau

Authors
  1. Mathieu Andrieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Proteau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Proteau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrieux, M., Proteau, L. Mixed observation favors motor learning through better estimation of the model’s performance. Exp Brain Res 232, 3121–3132 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4000-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4000-3

Keywords