IntroductionThe 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.
AMPLIFICATION OF ERROR: A LEARNING STRATEGY TO IMPROVE MOTOR SKILLS
MILANESE, Chiara;Corte, Stefano;CAVEDON, Valentina;
2013-01-01
Abstract
IntroductionThe 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.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
