essay plan for implicit motor learning

Question 1

evaluate the use of implicit vs explicit motor learning?

Answer 1

what is the difference and the benefit of IML?
IML = rules not generated
EML = conscious processing, goes through stages of cog learning (3 stage model) and declarative to procedural
difference in accumulation of rules so able to consciously access when performing, particularly under pressure, known as reinvestment, which may lead to choking as disrupting automatic control processes
controlling 1/3 determinants

how to tell if learning implicit?

• fewer rules generated
• reduced coherence between Fz and T3, shown to occur when puts holed but opposite when not
• no decrease of performance under pressure - found increased coherence in EML in pressure performance

ways to induce?

1. errorless - not thinking about why didn’t do well if didn’t make mistakes so not generating rules and consciously processing
   - not decrease in performance and fewer rules when secondary task applied, used in clinical settings, to reduce age effects of cognitive learning and in low motor ability children and reduced coherence
2. analogy - not generating rules if following a seemingly unrelated analogy
   - perhaps only works for novices/those in clinical setting as found that following footprints analogy improved walking in parkinsons and stroke patients
   - found that when adding a dual-task to batting analogy, intermediates performed worse, perhaps as turned into EML due to processing the difference to their normal hit (novices performed much better)

reinvestment/EML good for some?
- IML not necessary for those wanting to learn quickly and not needing to worry about pressure, also better for coaches in schools as not feasible
- better for athletes coming back from injury, as shwon by javelin throwers getting back to best when EML
- may facilitate performance improvements in experts as can assess what can be improved
high motor ability performed worse when errorless

Question 2

paragraph 1?

Answer 2

what are the differences and why is implicit motor learning useful in terms of the determinants of reinvestment?

IML - is when skill is learnt with limited accumulation of explicit knowledge underlying the performance of the skill, so limiting amount of declarative knowledge gained (Masters, 1992), knowledge procedural

EML - is when skill is learnt with attention draw to movements required to master the skill, leading to a build up of explicit knowledge and rules, progressing through the 3 stage model from cognitive, to associative to autonomous (Fitts & Posner, 1967) and knowledge goes from declarative to procedural

• end result may be the individual has autonomous, procedural knowledge, but the difference lies in the ability to access rules regarding the skill, which one is unable to do if they never learnt them in the first place
• this links onto the main strength of IML and weakness of EML: the degree to which underlying knowledge is available, leading to reinvestment (turning attention inward to mechanics of movement, which disrupts automatic motor processes AND info not available in declarative (Masters et al, 2008), which may result in choking (breakdown in performance, Maxwell et al, 2000)

so IML may limit 1 out of 3 determinants of reinvestment:

1. degree to which info consciously accessible
2. if context viewed as more of a threat than a challenge (Moore et al, 2013)
3. if one has a predisposition towards it (as determined through MSRS), for example, adults who sometimes fell had a propensity for movement specific reinvestment, which led to falling (Wong et al, 2009)

Question 3

paragraph 2?

Answer 3

how to measure if learning was implicit

1. fewer rules generated
2. low coherence between motor planning (Fz) and verbal-analytical (T3) regions of the brain, when learning implicit (Zhu et al, 2011)
3. lack of marked decrease in performance under pressure due to reinvestment - supported by lower connectivity in experts when puts were holed rather than missed, suggesting connectivity indicates conscious processing and disrupts performance (Gallicchio et al, 2015)- suggesting pressure increases connectivity

Question 4

paragraph 3?

Answer 4

one way to induce? - not reinvesting if able to dual-task as not consciously processing movements

errorless learning - if performance successful then hypothesis testing need not occur as goal of action has been achieved, so not generating rules about performance

• when adopting this in golf putting (moving further back when limited mistakes), were unaffected by introduction of second task, showing not consciously thinking about it, whereas errorful performed worse (had to think about movements) and also had fewer rules generated (Maxwell et al, 2001).
• counter negative effects of age on motor learning, as similar performance when errorless in old and young whereas older groups outperformed in errorful, suggesting IML still a good technique for older people and errorless learning and effective method to achieve this (Chauvel et al, 2012)
• used in a clinical setting, where those with parkinsons showed no decline in performance in hammering task when secondary task introduced when errorless compared to errorful (Masters et al, 2004)
• improves throwing accuracy and performance under dual-task loading conditions in developmentally disadvantaged children (Capio et al, 2011)
• support for this being IML as reduced coherence between the T3 and Fz regions when errorless over erroful (Zhu et al, 2011)

Question 5

paragraph 4?

Answer 5

another way to induce?

analogy learning - can apply an analogy without thinking of the rules underlying the concept of it, and can’t answer questions about these, indicating IML (Donnelly et al, 1993)
- may only be useful in clinical and novel settings as experts have already learned a specific movement which would be confused when taught an analogy

• clinical: walking performance faster and more stable in parkinsons and stroke patients when given analogy of following footprints (Kleyen et al, 2014; Jie et al, 2016).
• novices demonstrate improvements in batting performance after analogy learning, notably under a dual-task condition, however intermeditaes performed worse as they probably had to think about the analogy as it differed from their usual performance, so instead was an EMl technique, suggesting it should only be used on those yet to learn the skill (Capio et al, 2019)

Question 6

paragraph 5?

Answer 6

positives of reinvestment

IML may not be necessary for some people as reinvestment is good for picking up skills quicker (when performing under pressure isn’t an issue and for coaches who don’t have the time and equiptment to IML

• errorful (EML) may be more beneficial for children of high motor ability and errorless for those of low motor ability (Maxwell et al, 2016)
• conscious cog activity facilitates further improvement for sporting experts (Toner et al, 2014)
• relearning skills after injury, found that javelin throwers when told to think deeply about the process (EML), returned to distances they were throwing prior to injury as remembering successful performance movements (Collins et al, 1999)