The Effect of False Positive Feedback on Learning an Inhibitory-Action Task in Older Adults

OPTIMAL theory's claims about motivation lack evidence in the motor learning literature

Motivation is commonly recognized by researchers and practitioners as a key factor for motor learning. The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016) claims that practice conditions that enhance learners' expectancies for future successful outcomes or that are autonomy supportive are motivating, thus leading to better learning. To examine the current evidence of the association between motivation and motor learning, we searched the literature for studies that manipulated expectancies and/or autonomy support. Specifically, our goals were to assess whether these manipulations resulted in group differences in motivation and, if so, whether increased motivation was associated with learning advantages. Results showed that out of 166 experiments, only 21% (n = 35) included at least one measure of motivation, even though this is the main factor proposed by OPTIMAL theory to explain the learning benefits of these manipulations. Among those, only 23% (n = 8) found group-level effects on motivation, suggesting that these manipulations might not be as motivating as expected. Of the eight experiments that found a group-level effect on motivation, five also observed learning benefits, offering limited evidence that when practice conditions increase motivation, learning is more likely to occur. Overall, the small number of studies assessing motivation precludes any reliable conclusions on the association between motivation and motor learning from being drawn. Together, our results question whether manipulations implemented in the research lines supporting OPTIMAL theory are indeed motivating and highlight the lack of sufficient evidence in these literatures to support that increased motivation benefits motor learning.

The effect of false cognitive feedback on subsequent cognitive task performance

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has found beliefs about oneself and one's own abilities may have the potential to affect subsequent performance on a particular task. Additionally, providing false feedback about a particular characteristic or even about overall cognitive abilities may also affect performance on later tasks. However, it is unclear to what extent false positive or negative feedback about cognition will affect subsequent executive function task performance. In the present series of studies, we examined whether receiving negative false feedback about cognition would affect subsequent decision making and other executive function task performance.

METHOD

In Study 1, the participants (n = 115) received false feedback that they were either high or low in creative intelligence before completing a series of decision making tasks. In Study 2, the participants (n = 146) completed a similar false feedback paradigm before completing assessments of a range of executive functions.

RESULTS

Across studies, we found limited evidence of a consistent pattern of how false feedback affects subsequent cognitive task performance, although receiving positive and negative feedback affected specific tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the influence of false feedback on task performance is variable and may depend on factors such as the specific task or executive function assessed. In clinical work, it is important to consider how patients may internalize feedback about their cognitive abilities, as the feedback, coupled with other factors such as level of insight, apathy, disinhibition, or prior perceptions regarding a diagnosis, may influence interpretations.

The Effect of Previous Exposure on Virtual Reality Induced Public Speaking Anxiety: A Physiological and Behavioral Study

Public speaking anxiety (PSA) is defined as a strong distress when performing a speech in front of an audience, causing impairment in terms of work possibilities and social relationships. Audience behavior and feedback received during a speech are a crucial variable to induce PSA, affecting performance and perception. In this study, two different virtual reality public speaking scenarios were developed to investigate the impact of positive (more assertive) versus negative (more hostile) audience behavior regarding perceived anxiety and physiological arousal during performance. Moreover, the presence of any carry-over effect based on first experiences (positive vs. negative) was investigated by using a within-between design. Both explicit (questionnaires) and implicit physiological measures (heart rate [HR]) were used to assess participants' experience. The results confirmed the influence of audience behavior on perceived anxiety. As expected, negative audience elicited greater anxiety and lower experience pleasantness. More interesting, the first experience influenced the perceived anxiety and arousal during performance, suggesting some sort of priming effect due to the valence of previous experience. In particular, starting with an encouraging feedback scenario did not increase the perceived anxiety and HR in front of a subsequent annoying audience. This modulation did not appear in the group who started with the annoying audience, which clearly reported higher HR and anxiety during the annoying exposure compared with the encouraging audience. These results are discussed considering previous evidence on the effect of feedback on performance. In addition, physiological results are interpreted considering the role of somatic marker theory in human performance.