Motivation, movement, and motor share the same Latin root (movere, to move). In sport, motivation is used as a description of drive toward some goal usually in terms of level of intensity and direction of movement and also as a study of its causes and consequences.
Ryan and Deci (2000) described intrinsic motivation as, “inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn.” As coaches and practitioners, we have fallen accustomed to this idea of blocked and random practice because it facilitates what is learned. Meanwhile, we tend to forget that there is a success and challenge bandwidth for instructing and constructing learning and performance pertaining to how a skill learned. After all, expectancies for personal performance appear to serve a task readying function, creating a proactive rather than a reactive motor system. Movement-system readying occurs through pre movement excitation or inhibitions mechanisms which are associated to both attention and cognition. Expectancies anticipate rewarding properties of significance fulfilling a performer’s needs. They influence working memory and long term memory biasing our motor system to expected stimuli. Self efficacy or confidence, is more than just a consciously experienced perception. It is a function of control, significance, and achievement, influencing situation specific sense that he or she will be able to effect the actions that bring about task outcomes (Bandura 1977). Throughout the next couple of blog posts, I’ll be digging into the motivational and attentional affects on motor learning and performance. My goal is to shed light onto the importance of instructional cueing and feedback with the purpose of achieving movement automaticity. It’s interesting to think about performer’s who are ‘in the zone’, have the ‘hot hand’, are considered ‘clutch’, and are able to perform even as conditions continue to vary.
(Social Comparative Feedback)
A common approach in sport today is to provide individuals and teams with veridical feedback about their own performance in reference to a standard or gold standard. Competence, or having a sense of growth and the possibility of future success, is hindered if feedback is considered bad or not enough. Normative feedback is a tool used to support competence and relatedness, or showing that others are in similar situations typically given as information such as the average performance scores of other performer’s. While the research remains limited within the social comparative feedback realm, this idea of enhanced expectancies is embedded in the dopamine response literature which I will review towards the end of this series. The studies that have included such interventions have seen increased frequency and low amplitude (improved efficiency in motor control) in balance when performer’s were given normative feedback suggesting that their performance was better than average even when it wasn’t (Lewthwaite and Wulf, 2010). Learning and performance was improved through retention. Now of course, in practicality, we don’t want to lie to our athlete or patient, but we want them feel successful. I’ll touch on positive feedback in the next post, because I know thats what you’re thinking. Another study showed that normative feedback has a functional motivation affect that directly influences physiological changes at the level of stability control specifically in the soleus and peroneus, both muscles that function primarily for plantar flexion (Navaee et al., 2016). Similarly, Hutchinson et al., (2008) showed greater tolerance for sustained effort in a continuous force production task with lower perceived exertion as a function of positive normative feedback. The role of positive normative feedback is to reduce nervousness about ability during performance. In contrast, negative feedback, a sense of outside control, induce self regulatory mechanisms which in turn allow performer’s to focus more on bodily movements (internal focus) and other processes that hamper learning and performance.
This makes sense. When we are told our performance is on average similar to others within the same performance domain, we feel good as compared to it being the opposite. Moreover, it is conceivable that a success with challenge approach is a function of the resultant dopamine response which may give way to a variety of beneficial learning and memory effects often attributed to challenge or task difficulty. Think about it. Dopamine will dampen when we are challenged to do something. For example, if we have just taken the lead as a team in a basketball game but the other team comes back and takes the lead again leaving us with the last possession, this level of dopamine will only amplify to the impact of subsequent positive cues, strengthening the learning effect. This may be a terrible example, so let’s try another one. Challenge is a risk to expected reward. Let’s take a volleyball outside hitter for example. After five kills in a row, she is blocked twice, and therefore her movement, awareness, and swing power will constrain because now its about not making a mistake. Only when her coach says, “keep swinging away” will her level of dopamine increase because in her task readying space, she feels ownership and less nervousness as compared to a coach saying, “tip the ball down the line.” One of the main takeaways is that it is more likely a player will make a mistake after a mistake is made. We will continue this chat in further posts. Giving social comparative feedback to make performer’s feel as if their results are on par with those amongst them is crucial, especially for novice performer’s. At the same time, it allows performer’s not to think too much about their mistake. I hear it all the time.
“You can’t miss this serve”
“You’ve only made 3/8 from the three point line, so pass the ball”
Stuff like this.
Back to my first point. Coaches and practitioners are more keen on changing what is learned as compared to how it is learned. Conditions of practice are impactful and it really matters. What also matters is the unique interplay between how conditions of practice facilitate positive adaptation.
While many intuitively may provide such feedback, others may be more focused on correcting errors, with unintended consequences for motivation and learning. In the hippocampus, learning increases the survival of newly generalized cells into differentiated neurons to the extent that the learning experience is new, effortful, and importantly successful (Shors, 2014). Feedback is learning, but we’re stuck looking at performance.The problem is that that we like to stop after some arbitrary criterion is reached. Concepts like overtraining and over practice start to create assumptions in our mind that take away from the importance of continuing practice. Performer’s who do not have a great deal practice beyond the stage of initial performance probably do not experience the beneficial increase is resistance to stress, fatigue, and interference that comes from extended overlearning. We are idiotically consumed by creating these habit patterns and we disallow the motor system to perform under stressful conditions where feedback and instruction are the main driver towards optimal performance.
Concepts like overtraining and over practice start to create assumptions in our mind that take away from the importance of continuing practice.
The point here is that performer’s need to develop many different cognitive sets which can be switched from one to another readily, and can include the same stimulus as members of different cognitive sets.
We are idiotically consumed by creating these habit patterns and we disallow the motor system to perform under stressful conditions where feedback and instruction are the main driver towards optimal performance.
The key takeaway from this is that there needs to be variability within the success and challenge bandwidth which is a function of practice conditions (i.e blocked and random). We talk a lot of the freeing of degrees of freedom, but tend to forget that this ‘freeing’ is a result of us as performer’s feeling good about our performance. Giving normative feedback and asking performer’s what they think about their performance is a key ingredient to the perceptual motor landscape. Social comparative feedback is one of the “syntax of action” that influence motivation and attention in motor learning, control and performance. Future research needs to study the influence of social comparative feedback within competitive team sporting events. I hope this makes you think a little bit!
Conditions of practice are impactful and it really matters. What also matters is the unique interplay between how conditions of practice facilitate positive adaptation.
Love and Light,
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215
Hutchinson, J. C., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N.,&Tenenbaum, G. (2008).The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 457–472
Lewthwaite, R.,&Wulf,G. (2010b). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 738–749.
Navaee, S. A., Farsi, A., & Abdoli, B. (2016). The effect of normative feedback on stability and efficacy of some selected muscles in a balancing task. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology, 5(1), 43-52.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Shors, T. J. (2014). The adult brain makes new neurons, and effortful learning keeps them alive. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 311–318.