Feedback protocol of 'fading knowledge of results' is effective for prolonging motor learning retention.
Yoichiro Aoyagi, Eri Ohnishi, Yoshinori Yamamoto and 5 others
PMID 31528010WHAT IT FOUND
No feedback schedule was better than another in healthy adults learning a shoulder force task.
Faded and 50% feedback improved accuracy after practice, while 100% feedback did not, so fading is not proven superior.
Key findings
01The three feedback schedules did not differ significantly from one another in absolute error at pretest, posttest, or any retention test.
02After practice, absolute error was significantly smaller than before in the faded KR and 50% KR groups, but not in the 100% KR group.
03The faded KR group still had significantly smaller absolute error than its own pretest at retention tests 1 and 2; the 100% KR and 50% KR groups did not.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used 46 healthy right-handed adults, not patients, so it does not show what happens in people receiving rehabilitation. The outcome was laboratory absolute error in newtons for matching a shoulder flexion force target, not a functional movement or patient-centred outcome. The main group comparisons were not significant, so the apparent retention benefit of faded KR comes from within-group comparisons. The Discussion states that faded KR was significantly reduced compared with the other protocols for up to 2 weeks, but the Results state no significant between-group differences at any test.
Declared interests
The authors indicated no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that fading feedback is proven better than other feedback schedules. The between-group tests found no significant differences in absolute error, and the study used healthy adults performing a laboratory shoulder force task, not patients.