1,720,962 research outputs found
Amplification of error: a learning strategy to improve motor skills
No full textLa correzione dell’errore tecnico permane uno dei più difficili e frustranti ostacoli che ogni allenatore e atleta devono affrontare: errori che l’atleta sembra aver superato durante le sessioni di allenamento, riappaiono sotto stress competitivo o quando l’atleta si esercita da solo o addirittura inspiegabilmente anche dopo anni di duro lavoro. Lo scopo di questo studio è stato quello di comparare l’efficacia di una strategia di insegnamento chiamata “Metodo dell’Amplificazione dell’Errore” con il metodo istruttivo (DI) ed un gruppo di controllo (C) nella correzione di errori tecnici in atleti di differente livello di abilità. Il Metodo dell’Amplificazione dell’Errore è una strategia di insegnamento per la correzione di errori tecnici delle abilità motorie alternativa ai metodi convenzionali (istruttivo e dimostrativo). Questo metodo si basa sull’assunto che l’individuo può correggere il suo pattern motorio attraverso i suoi errori. Esagerare deliberatamente un errore aiuta il soggetto a fare utili confronti tra movimenti. La prova amplificata fornisce nuovi feedback intrinseci e quindi stimola nell'atleta le funzioni di categorizzazione percettiva e di elaborazione, concettuale e simbolica, delle informazioni ricevute. Il soggetto ha una chiara sensazione di “ciò che non deve fare” e quindi è più facile che arrivi ad esprimere un movimento più efficace attraverso una ricerca autonoma di soluzioni motorie, oltre a migliorare la sua capacità di detenzione dell’errore. Nell’esecuzione di un movimento l’atleta può manifestare più di un errore, ma uno solo incide maggiormente sull’equilibrio del sistema e sul risultato. In genere gli errori secondari non sono altro che degli aggiustamenti compensatori. I risultati delle prove post e delle prove di retention test evidenziano un miglioramento significativamente maggiore per molte variabili cinematiche per il gruppo di atleti trattato con il MAE rispetto agli altri due gruppi (metodo istruttivo e controllo). Dai risultati si evince che il MAE è una strategia di insegnamento efficace e consente di ottenere miglioramenti del pattern motorio dell’atleta sin dalla prima sessione di training. Nel MAE a differenza del metodo istruttivo, il movimento è usato come feedback, quindi un feedback che utilizza lo stesso linguaggio usato dal soggetto cioè un linguaggio percettivo/motorio. La procedura del MAE è caratterizzata da un un-learning task piuttosto che un re-teaching task con il vantaggio di un completo transfert di apprendimento.The correction of technical errors in motor skills represents one of the major issues in motor learning: consistent errors in technique, especially under competitive stress, are very common among athletes and are perhaps among the major factors that can cause underperformance.
The aim of this research was to compare the effectiveness of a leaning strategy called “Method of Amplification of Error” (MAE) to the traditional instruction method (DI) and to a no-feedback control condition (C) in improving the performance in athletes with different levels of ability. Traditional methods of teaching are based on delivering extrinsic feedback by direct instruction or by demonstration. The MAE is an alternative strategy for technique error correction based on the assumption that subjects can learn to correct their movements through their mistakes. The exaggeration of a specific error helps the subject to make useful comparisons between motor patterns. Amplifying the subject’s “main error” allows him/her to better understand what is not to be done, thereby enhancing the correction of the main motor error. The amplified error trial provides the learner with new intrinsic feedback, stimulates the functions of perceptive categorization and the conceptual and symbolic elaboration of the received information, that enhances his/her error detection capability. Moreover, the effectiveness of MAE is based on the amplification of the main error, while the amplification of secondary errors is less effective in respect to the main one as they are assumed to be the result of compensatory adjustments to achieve the final movement The second aim of this project was to test how performance parameters vary as a consequence of main error’s vs. secondary errors’ amplification. Results showed at the post-test and at the retention test the MAE group showed a greater improvement than the DI and C groups for several kinematic parameters. The technical problem is solved quickly in just one single session learning. MAE employs movement as feedback and the feedback is maintained in the motor-perceptive language used by the subject’s own body. The different approach of MAE is that it is an unlearning task rather than a re-teaching one. In this way the subject reduces the error with a full transfer of learning, without the need for the customary adaptation period
Rapid technique correction using method of amplification of error: four case studies with national athletes.
No full textDifferential effects of main error correction versus secondary error correction on motor pattern of running
No full textThe aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of how the run pattern varies as a consequence to main error correction versus secondary error correction. Twenty-two university students were randomly assigned to one of two training-conditions: 'main error' (ME) and 'secondary error' (SE) correction. The rear-foot strike at touchdown was hypothesized as the 'main error', whereas an incorrect shoulder position (i.e., behind the base of support) as the 'secondary error'. In order to evaluate any changes in run pattern at the foot touchdown instant, the ankle, knee and hip joint angles, the height of toe and heel (with respect to the ground), and the horizontal distance from the heel to the projected center of mass on the ground were measured. After the training-intervention, the ME group showed a significant improvement in the run pattern at the foot touchdown instant in all kinematic parameters, whereas no significant changes were found in the SE group. The results support the hypothesis that the main error can have a greater influence on the movement patterns than a secondary error. Furthermore, the findings highlight that a correct diagnosis and the correction of the 'main error' are fundamental for greater run pattern improvement
Amplification of error:A learning strategy to improve motor skills
No full textThe aim of this study is to test the efficacy of an alternative teaching strategy called Method of Amplification of Error (MAE) and to compare the relative effectiveness of MAE to the traditional direct instruction method (DI) and to a no-feedback control condition (C). MAE assumes that amplifying the subject’s “main” error in a given motor skill would allow him to better understand what is not-to-be-done, thereby correcting motor errors. Nine Regional and National weightlifters participated in the present study. The comparative study included 3 groups: DI feedback, MAE feedback and Control (C), without feedback. At the testing session each athlete performed 12 trials: 3 trials pre- training (T0), 6 trials feedback training and 3 trials post- training (T1). Each athlete performed the trials at 80% of the maximum weight lifted in the last competition with snatch technique. Kinematic and kinetic analyses were performed with a VICON system and two force plates. Mean values, standard deviation and percentage variations of the barbell’s maximum vertical velocity, the peak power, the horizontal and vertical displacement were used for the performance analysis. Results showed that the post-instruction performance in MAE group present a better performance than DI and C group in all variables considerate. As such, the reported results are consistent with the findings of other studies showing that MAE strategies can facilitate motor learning, as it seems to be addressed from an open, individualized perspective to help lifters build an efficient individual technical pattern
Correction of a Technical Error in the Golf Swing: Error Amplification Versus Direct Instruction
No full textThe aim of the present study was to evaluate which of two strategies, method of amplification of error (MAE) or direct instruction (DI), would benefit error correction more during a full swing with a driver. Thirty-four golfers were randomly assigned to one of three training conditions (MAE, DI and Control). Participants were tested in two sessions: a practice session in which each golfer performed 7 pre-training trials (T0), 6 training-intervention trials, and 7 post-training trials (T1); a retention test session (T2) after one week. A 3x3 experimental design was used: training condition - MAE, DI, Control; and Time - T0, T1, T2. Results showed that MAE is more effective in correcting the technical errors than the DI and that the benefits derived from its application are still present in the retention test. These findings revealed that MAE is an effective method for rapidly improving motor performance in a complex skill
The correction of pattern errors in golf swing: direct instruction feedback vs amplification of error feedback.
No full textAim: The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of an alternative teaching strategy called Method of Amplification of Error (MAE) and to compare the relative effectiveness of MAE to the traditional direct instruction method (DI) and to a no-feedback control condition (C). MAE is based on the assumption that subjects can learn to correct their movements through their mistakes (1). The rationale for the MAE is that giving a subject the opportunity to experience directly his/her own main error will trigger an autonomous searching strategy (2) that will in turn help him/her to improve performance.
Methods: 15 golfers were assigned to one of three groups: DI feedback, MAE feedback and C without feedback, based on their handicap (H), (2 professional, 2 medium H and 1 high H for each group). During the training session each athlete performed 20 swings [7 swings pre- training (T0), 6 swings feedback training and 7 swings post-training (T1)]. After a week the athletes performed retention test (T2). Participants used their own driver and wore appropriate golf shoes. The feedback focused on the “main” error diagnosed as the incorrect position of the participant’s centre of mass projection (weight transfer). Kinematic outcomes were recorded with a motion analysis system (VICON 1.5.1, 8 cameras, 500Hz), a dedicated software (VICON Workstation 5.2) was also used for digitalization and reconstruction of the marker positions. Nonparametric statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.; the Mann-Whitney test was conducted to assess significant differences between groups at three levels: T0, T1 and T2. Statistical significance was set at P≤0.05.
Results: At baseline (T0) kinematic outcomes were similar between groups (P>0.05). At T1 and T2 MAE showed a greater improvement (p<0.05) than DI and C for club speed (T 1: 4.23%; -1.05%; 0.85%, T2: 5.11%; -1.02%; -0.28%, respectively), as well as for ball speed. In fact, MAE showed higher percentage change values than DI and C at T1 and T2 (4.21%; -5.33%; 1.8%; 8.27%, 0.72%; 1.6%, respectively). The same pattern was found for the duration of the swing phases: MAE showed a significantly decreased of tempo at T1 and T2 from the take away to the late backswing and from the early downswing to the ball contact (p<0.05).
Discussion: Results showed that MAE rapidly improves motor performance in comparison with DI. The amplified error, besides providing the learner with new intrinsic feedback, stimulates the functions of perceptive categorization and the conceptual and symbolic elaboration of the received information, therefore improving his/her error detection capability.
References
1 Milanese C et al. (2008). “Amplification of error”: a rapidly effective method for motor performance improvement. The Sport Psychol, 22, 164-174.
2. Newell KM et al. (1989). Search strategies and the acquisition of coordination. In Wallace (Ed), Perspectives on coordination 86-122
AMPLIFICATION OF ERROR: A LEARNING STRATEGY TO IMPROVE MOTOR SKILLS
No full textIntroductionThe correction of technique errors in motor skills represents one of the major issues in motor control and motor learning literature. A good technique is an essential prerequisite in performance improvement and injury reduction. The aim of this study is to test the efficacy of an alternative teaching strategy called Method of Amplification of Error (MAE) and to compare the relative effectiveness of MAE to the traditional direct instruction (DI) and to a no-feedback control condition (C). MAE assumes that amplifying the subject’s “main” error in a given motor skill would allow him to better understand what is not-to-be-done, thereby correcting motor errors.MethodsTwelve golfers were assigned to one of three groups: DI feedback, MAE feedback and C without feedback, based on their handicap (H), (1 professional, 2 medium H and 1 high H for each group). During the training session each athlete performed 20 swings [7 swings pre- training (T0), 6 swings feedback training and 7 swings post-training (T1)]. After a week the athletes performed retention test (T2). Participants used their own driver and wore appropriate golf shoes. The feedback focused on the “main” error diagnosed as the incorrect position of the participant’s centre of mass projection. Kinematic outcomes were recorded with a motion analysis system (VICON 1.5.1, 8 cameras, 500Hz), a dedicated software (VICON Workstation 5.2) was also used for digitalization and reconstruction of the marker positions. Nonparametric statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.; the Mann-Whitney test was conducted to assess significant differences between groups at three levels: T0, T1 and T2. Statistical significance was set at P≤0.05.ResultsAt baseline (T0) kinematic outcomes were similar between groups (P>0.05). At T1 and T2 MAE showed a greater improvement (p<0.05) than DI and C for club speed (T 1: 4.83%; -2.35%; 0.55%, T2: 6.19%; -1.4%; -0.26%, respectively), as well as for ball speed. In fact, MAE showed higher percentage change values than DI and C at T1 and T2 (4.11%; -6.33%; 1.6%; 9.87%, 0.94%; 1.9%, respectively). The same pattern was found for the duration of the swing phases: MAE showed a significantly decreased of tempo at T1 and T2 from the take away to the late backswing and from the early downswing to the ball contact (p<0.05).DiscussionIn this study the effect of amplification of error strategy in golfers with different ability levels was evaluated. The present findings suggest that MAE is an effective strategy for correcting the pattern of motion in a short time. Further research is necessary to evaluatethe persistence of MAE feedback effects over time and their impact on the learning of other sport tasks
The effects of two different correction strategies on the snatch technique in weightlifting
No full textImproving motor skills represents one of the major issues in motor control and motor learning literature. The aim of this study was to investigate which of two strategies, method of amplification of error (MAE) or direct instruction (DI), would be more beneficial for error correction of the snatch technique. Thirty well-trained male weightlifters were randomly assigned to one of three training conditions (MAE, DI and Control). The experiment took place in only one practice session in which each lifter performed 3 pre-training trials, 8 training-intervention trials, and 3 post-training trials; and a retention test session after one week. An optoelectronic motion capture system was used to measure the kinematic parameters of the weightlifting performance. After the training-intervention, data showed that the MAE group revealed a greater improvement in several kinematic parameters when compared to the DI and C groups, and the benefits derived from its application were still present one week later in the retention test. These findings could have practical implications for sport psychology and physical education because while practice is obviously necessary for improving learning, the efficacy of the learning process is essential in enhancing learners’ motivation and sport enjoyment
The effects of amplification of error: a teaching strategy to improve motor pattern in weightlifting.
No full textAim: The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of an alternative teaching strategy called Method of Amplification of Error (MAE) and to compare the relative effectiveness of MAE to the traditional direct instruction method (DI) and to a no-feedback control (C). Developing methods aimed at improving motor skills in sports is a key factor in movement science. MAE assumes that amplifying the subject’s “main” error in a given motor skill would allow him to better understand what is not-to-be-done, thereby correcting motor errors (1). MAE employs movement as feedback and the feedback is maintained in the motor-perceptive language used by the subject’s own body.Method: 12 Regional and National weightlifters were assigned to one of 3 groups: DI feedback, MAE feedback and Control (C), without feedback. At the testing session each athlete performed 12 trials: 3 trials pre- training (T0), 6 trials feedback training and 3 trials post- training (T1). After a week the athletes performed retention test (T2). Each athlete performed the trials at 80% of the maximum weight lifted in the last competition with snatch technique. The feedback focused on the “main” error diagnosed as the incorrect position of the participant’s centre of mass projection during the first pull phase. Kinematic outcomes were recorded with a motion analysis system (VICON 1.5.1, 8 cameras, 250Hz), a dedicated software (VICON Workstation 5.2) was also used for digitalization and reconstruction of the marker positions. Nonparametric statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.; the Mann-Whitney test was conducted to assess significant differences between groups at three levels: T0, T1 and T2. Statistical significance was set at P≤0.05.Results: At baseline (T0) kinematic outcomes were similar between groups (P>0.05). At T1 and T2 MAE showed a greater improvement (p<0.05) than DI and C for the horizontal displacement from start to first pull, from start position to catch and from most forward position to catch. Moreover, significant differences were observed at T2 for the horizontal displacement from start position to beginning second pull and the vertical travel range for MAE vs C, no significant differences vs DI, despite MAE showed a greater improvement than DI.Conclusion: This study focused on the use of different types of instruction (MAE vs DI) in improving the bar path kinematics of weightlifters. In previous studies horizontal displacement and the vertical travel range of the barbell have been chosen to characterize an effective technique. Results showed that MAE rapidly improves motor performance in comparison with DI. The different approach of MAE is that it is an unlearning task rather than a re-teaching one, in this way the subject deletes forever the error with a full transfer of learning.References. 1. Milanese C et al. (2008). “Amplification of error”: a rapidly effective method for motor performance improvement. The Sport Psychol, 22, 164-174
- …
