ArticlePloS one2020
Self-controlled practice and nudging during structural learning of a novel control interface.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-controlled practice schedules have been shown to enhance motor learning in several contexts, but their effectiveness in structural learning tasks, where the goal is to eventually learn an underlying structure or rule, is not well known. Here we examined the use of self-controlled practice in a novel control interface requiring structural learning. In addition, we examined the effect of 'nudging'-i.e., whether altering task difficulty could influence self-selected strategies, and hence facilitate learning. Participants wore four inertial measurement units (IMUs) on their upper body and the goal was to use motions of the upper body to move a screen cursor to different targets presented on the screen. The structure in this task that had to be learned was based on the fact that the signals from the IMUs were linearly mapped to the x- and y- position of the cursor. Participants (N = 62) were split into 3 groups (random, self-selected, nudge) based on whether they had control over the sequence in which they could practice the targets. To test whether participants learned the underlying structure, participants were tested both on the trained targets, as well as novel targets that were not practiced during training. Results showed that during training, the self-selected group showed shorter movement times relative to the random group, and both self-selected and nudge groups adopted a strategy of tending to repeat targets. However, in the test phase, we found no significant differences in task performance between groups, indicating that structural learning was not reliably affected by the type of practice. In addition, nudging participants by adjusting task difficulty did not show any significant benefits to overall learning. These results suggest that although self-controlled practice influenced practice structure and facilitated learning, it did not provide any additional benefits relative to practicing on a random schedule in this task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.