The why? and how? of IML - 4.2 Flashcards
what are the features of IL?
Unconscious / non-verbal
how might IML be useful?
To prevent reinvestment under pressure
Consciously controlling movement
how would we know if learning is implicit?
behavioural (rules / PRT) and neural measures
Neurological evidence - Lower left temporal-frontal connectivity characterises expert and accurate performance: high-alpha T7-Fz connectivity as a marker of conscious processing during movement
findings provide additional evidence that communication between verbal/language and motor areas of the brain during prep for action and its execution is associated wit poor motor perf
validate high alpha left temporal-frontal connectivity as a neurophys correlate of movement specific conscious processing
so why might IML be useful? (anticipation) - Abernethy, Schorer, Jackson and Hagemann (2012)
Only the implicit learning group showed performance superior to the control groups under the stress situation
means to IML
Restrict build-up of declarative knowledge
main mechanisms:
- Loading working memory with a secondary task
- Errorless Learning
- Analogy Learning
other potential mechanisms
- No Outcome Feedback
- Marginally Perceptive Outcome feedback
- Quiet Eye Training (?)
- Brain stimulation (neuro doping) - No solid research to support brain stimulation. There are ST effect for TMS, but they don’t last.
dual task learning
the learning of a skill while simultaneously performing another task
the second task can be a motor or cog task but must be attention demanding
Masters (1992)
random letter generation while learning to putt
learned implicitly (i.e., no explicit knowledge of how they putted)
robust under psychological stress (e.g., financial incentives)
Masters (1992) method
Learning Phase (400 trials) & Test Phase (100 trials)
Novices, golf putting to 150cm target (slight incline)
Five treatment conditions:
1. Implicit learning (IL) – learn using a resource limiting
secondary task (random letter generation – Baddely, 1966)
2. Explicit learning (EL) – given rules
3. Implicit learning control (ILC) – unstressed in Test Phase [as a check of whether change was due to no longer doing the secondary task or due to stress]
4. Stressed Control (SC) – discovery learning
5. Non-stressed Control (N-SC) – discovery learning but no stress in Test Phase [to check whether learning assymptoted]
Stress Phase – evaluation apprehension (Cottrell, 1972) + financial inducement
- stress manipulation checks:
State Scale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al, 1970); heart rate; time to complete the session (Bond & Titus, 1983)
Explicit knowledge – verbal protocols
classic characteristics of IL
lack of explicit verbal knowledge
robustness to stress
a phenomenal sense of intuition (anecdotal)
Maxwell, Masters and Eves (2000)
“Future research should attempt to establish alternative methods to encourage implicit skill acquisition and discourage the use of explicit strategies… (p. 118).
i.e. It is not much use to coaches if performers are more robust under stress but it takes them longer to get good in the first place
Errorless learning
learning is fac by constraining the learning env so that v. few errors occur
Trying to minimise mistakes, rather than not making any errors at all.
We are predisposed to remember negative things, and this causes us to think about how we can prevent this in the future.
However, this process again does take longer.
If performance is successful a hypothesis testing strategy is unlikely to be adopted, since the system is likely to be satisfied that the goal of the action has been achieved.
Start easy – don’t miss – gradually increase difficulty – E.g. Putt from 25 cm, 50 cm —- 200cm
Under pressure Errorless learners perform better (and report fewer rules)
– i.e. Have not choked via the process of reinvestment
is the slow progression task dependent?
If you give choice response task when movement is being prepared you get lots of benefits in terms of forgetting. Also, if you give it during the actual movement you get better performance too.
the implicit benefit of learning without errors - Maxwell, Masters, Kerr and Weedon (2001)
The golf putting performance of errorless learners in both studies was unaffected by the imposition of a secondary task load, whereas the performance of errorful learners deteriorated.
IML in PDs - Masters, MacMahon and Pall (2004)
Patients in the errorless (implicit) motor learning condition exhibited robustness to secondary task loading, whereas patients in the errorful (explicit) motor learning condition did not.
Subliminal learning - Masters, Maxwell and Eves (2009)
“there are hundreds of indications leading us to conclude that at every moment there is in us an infinity of perceptions unaccompanied by awareness or reflection.”
Reducing error benefits the field-based learning of a fundamental movement skill in children
Movement form improved among girls, while throwing accuracy improved among children with low ability
reduced perf errors in FMS training resulted in greater learning than a programme that did not restrict errors
reduced cog processing costs (effective dual-task perf) associated with such approach suggest its potential benefits for children with developmental conditions
Age effects shrink when motor learning is predominantly supported by nondeclarative, automatic memory processes: evidence from golf putting
the results showed age-equiv motor perf in infreq-error learning but age deficits in freq-error learning
motor perf of freq-error learners required more attention with age, as evidenced by an age deficit on the attention-demanding secondary task
neural co-activation as a yardstick of IML and the propensity for conscious control of movement - Zhu, Poolton, Wilson, Maxwell and Masters (2011)
Greater coherence between T3 and Fz in high reinvesters and errorful learning
analogy learning
[heuristics/analogies] convey higher order relationships amongst the rules of the concept (Gentner (1983)
analogy learners can apply the concept described by the analogy, but can’t answer questions about the rules underlying the concept.
this is a defining characteristic of implicit learning
There is no comprehensive directory of sporting analogies
Important in clinical environments
analogy sporting examples
“Chase a chook” – AFL – secure a
bouncing ball
“assume low body position / use soft hands”
Exploring the utility of analogies in motor learning after stroke: a feasibility study - Kleynen, Wilson, Jie, Hekkert, Goodwin and Braun
Increased perf after analogy
follow up - footprints in the sand
only good for novices/clinical?
People who already have pattern set in is harder to change.
other mechanisms of inducing IL
Reduced feedback
Quiet Eye Training
Brain Stimulation
IML: what and why?
Acquisition of a motor skill with no or little accumulation of explicit verbal knowledge about the performance of that skill
Less dependence on verbal-analytical processes to support performance
Immunity to reinvestment: stressed, distracted and fatigued, yet stable.
is it always bad to reinvest?
- Advantages for picking up skills quicker
- Good for experts trying to get better
- Good for experts trying to re-learn skills
interaction between motor ability and skill learning in children: application of I and E approaches - Maxwell, Capio and Masters (2016)
these results suggest that IML (errorless) may be beneficial for children with low motor ability
also show a trend that children of high motor ability benefit from learning explicitly (errorful)
dimensions of movement specific reinvestment in practice of a gold putting task - Malhotra, Poolton, Wilson, Omuro and Masters (2015)
movement self-consciousness positively influenced putting proficiency early and later in practice by reducing variability and putter face angle at impact
conscious motor processing positively influenced putting proficiency early in practice by reducing variability and putter face angle at impact
high reinvesters
Early in learning both factors (movement self-consciousness &
conscious motor processing) were related to
– Superior putting performance
– Reduced variability of putter face at impact and impact velocity
MSC– also related to better performance later in practice
Useful early in learning especially if you want to learn quickly
Beilock’s work
Skill focus only affects
experts negatively
Disrupts their automaticity, whereas novices find it useful.
So these findings could still be an issue later…
Therefore maybe we should learn implicitly
BUT … is this appropriate?
in praise of conscious awareness: a new framework for the investigation of “continuous improvement” in expert athletes
conscious cog activity plays a key role in fac further improvement amongst expert sports performers and musicians - people who have already achieved elite status
this evidence suggests that expert performers in motor domains can strategically deploy conscious attention to alternate between diff modes of bodily awareness (reflective and pre-reflective) during perf
in training
Deliberate practice
– Overcoming ‘arrested
development’
Self-focus / self-awareness needed to refine inefficient movements
Masters’ work does not reflect the dynamic nature of expert’s attention
– Offseason / training vs competition
– Recovering from injury
Even in event there may be a difference between preparation, execution and evaluation
enhancing perf proficiency at the expert level: considering the role of ‘somaesthetic awareness’ - Toner and Moran
“According to Shustermann (2008), somatic attention is helpful when “we need to correct, relearn, and adjust our habits of spontaneous performance” (p.138)….bodily awareness is not always deleterious to performance and indeed, may be necessary in order to facilitate ‘continuous improvement’ at the elite levels of sport.”
“research on the topic of ‘skill recovery’ shows that athletes who are trying to regain prior levels of high-level performance often deliberately use conscious processing strategies to refine or restore elite habitual movements”
what about experts relearning skills? - refining and regaining skills in fixation/diversification stage performers: the five A model
- Analysis
- Awareness
- Adjustment
- (Re) Automation
- Assurance
other tensions - cue words
“Instructional nudges”
– 70% of tour golfers use a swing thought
– Cause reinvestment????
However this holistic cue is not the same as step-by-step…
conscious processing and the process goal paradox - Mullen and Hardy (2010)
holistic goals may be key
is choking under pressure a consequence of skill-focus or increased distractibility? results from a tennis serve task
Just because something is ‘bad’ doesn’t mean that it explains choking.
DISTRACTION
may not be choking due to too much conscious focus on movements but due to distraction instead
thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or perf worries? - Oudejans, Kuijpers, Kooijman and Bakker (2011)
under pressure attention of expert athletes was often focused on worries and hardly ever on movement execution
furthermore, the athletes reported that they focused attention on external factors and that they reverted to pos monitoring in an attempt to maintain perf
a comparison of self-focus v attentional explanations of choking - Wilson, Chattington, Horvat and Smith (2007)
stronger support for predictions of processing efficiency theory
critical
How many current elite athletes learned in a wholly implicit way?????
Is it (always) practical?
How often is it used in relearning / enhancement?
Is reinvestment really why people choke?
Master (1992) results
EL had more explicit rules and control groups had more rules than implicit group.
Unstressed groups were not stressed and vice versa.
IL groups learnt slower than the explicit and control groups.
Two implicit groups improve under stress and the explicit and stress control groups reduced performance under pressure. Slower learning was beneficial when it came to stress test at the end.
