1. Feedback From bandwidths onwards

2. First, the guidance hypothesis Remember the guidance hypothesis? Usually examined with simple button tasks Some others have tried different tasks now...

3. Guidance and bimanual coordination Task layout...

4. Guidance and bimanual coordination Feedback types...

5. Guidance and bimanual coordination Results... Guidance hypothesis supported Also, specificity of practice supported for continuous but not discrete feedback. Feedback good Feedback bad!

6. Guidance and driving A far cry from a button and a barrier...

7. Guidance and driving Task... Feedback bad!

8. Guidance and driving Measures... Feedback bad!

9. Guidance and driving Results... Feedback good Feedback no good Seems to suggest maladaptive short term corrections

10. Bandwidths and driving Similar task, but with some problems fixed

11. Bandwidths and driving Similar task, but with some problems fixed Now use a simulator, rather than the real thing

12. Bandwidths and driving Groups: Basically, the feedback used is now vibrations of the car seat, applied either when within or outside of a fixed distance from the center lane There are also a control group and a realistic group

13. Bandwidths and driving Results: Seems conventional BW feedback works quite well.

14. Self-controlled feedback Relationship to bandwidth feedback Providing guidance when thought to be most effective Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Manipulation: Choose whether you got feedback on a trial Some choose before the trial, some choose after What difference would this make?

15. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Task: Can err in proportions and/or in absolute times

16. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Results – performance quality Main differences in transfer

17. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) Results – when do they choose to receive feedback? Seems feedback is chosen after good trials

18. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007)

19. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) Manipulation: receive feedback after good or poor trials Task: beanbag toss to target, 60 trials practice, 10 trials test Feedback: (e.g.) -90, +70

20. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2007) Results - accuracy

21. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky et al. (2008)

22. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) task

23. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky et al. (2008) results significant Not significant

24. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) More KR vs. less KR Same task as C et al 2008. All participants do 60 trials Form groups after practice – based on proportion of feedback requested. Who retains the task the best?

25. Self-controlled feedback Chiviacowsky et al. (2008ii) Results: Basically a warning that some kids might not request enough feedback – needs to be used with education in mind!

26. Motivational factors – good trials All the focus on good trials gets folk thinking of motivational effects of feedback (rather than simple error correction...

27. Motivational factors – good trials Badami et al. (2011) Same manipulation as C & W (2007)

28. Motivational factors – ability Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009) Some are told the task reflects an inherent ability, some that it is an acquirable skill

29. Motivational factors – ability Wulf & Lewthwaite (2009)

30. Motivational factors – fake feedback Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)

31. Motivational factors – fake feedback Wulf & Lewthwaite (2010)