Chapter 9 Motor Learning Concepts and
Research Methods
Motor learning is a set of processes
associated with practice or experience leading
to relatively permanent changes in the
capability for skilled movement.
Process is a set of events or occurrences that,
taken together, lead to some particular
product, state, or change.
Morgan & King, 1971- Notice that we have
not defined learning as a change in behavior
per se, as many have done.
The goal of practice for the learner is to
increase the “strength” or the “quality” of this
internal state, so that the capability for skill
will be maximized in future attempts.
Researcher’s goal is to understand the nature
of the internal processes that have led to the
increases in the state; thus, theorists propose
hypothetical processes to account for learning
in experimental settings.
- tend to provide an answer to the
question of what was learned.
William James (1890) used the term “habit”
for this internal capability for movement.
- Defining learning as producing a
capability for movement directs our
focus to the internal state and the
processes that have led to it, rather
than simply to the behavioral
changes.
The concept of a capability for movement
implies that:
if the capability is “strong,” then the skilled
behavior may occur if the external conditions,
motivation, and other surrounding factors are
present.
if the conditions are not favorable, then the
skilled behavior might not occur
—for example, if fatigue is present or
motivation is low.
Cahill, McGaugh, & Weinberg, 2001- The
distinction between learning and performance
is significant not only in the behavioral
sciences but also in the neurobiology of
learning and memory.
Motor Learning Is Not Directly Observable-
The processes that underlie changes in
capability —and the nature of the capability
itself—are highly complex phenomena in the
central nervous system, such as changes in
functional connectivity between sensorimotor
processing areas in the brain or changes in the
patterning of muscular action.
Motor Learning Is Relatively Permanent-
Something lasting occurs when one engages
in practice and learns some activity—
something that does not simply pass away in
the next few minutes or hours.
Comparing Motor Adaptation and Motor
Learning
Adaptation is the iterative process of
adjusting one’s movement to new demands.
- motor adaptation
- motor learning
Motor adaptation- has taken on several
different definitions in the literature. Motor
adaptation is commonly described as the trial-
to-trial modification of a movement.
1. The movement retains its identity of being
a specific action (e.g., walking) but changes in
terms of one or more parameters (e.g., force
or direction);
2. the change occurs with repetition or
practice of the behavior and is gradual over
minutes to hours;
3. once adapted, the performer does not
exhibit the prior behavior; instead, they show
after-effects and must de-adapt the behavior
with practice in the same gradual, continuous
manner back to its initial state.
Bastian, 2008- motor adaptation is important
for human behavior and particularly for
rehabilitation.
- a highly flexible control that can
account for transient but predictable
changes in task demands that
frequently occur in the natural
environment
Measuring Motor Learning
motor learning- is a set of processes that
underlie the changes in a capability for
movement.
Performance Curve- a large group of
individuals are asked to practice on some
motor task, and the experimenter charts their
performances as a function of “trials”.
- When the measure of performance is
an error score, the error scores will
usually decrease with practice.
Quesada and Schmidt (1970)- the
participant’s performances on a timing task
improved with practice.
- the question of interest relates to the
role of variables that influence
learning of the motor task.
Motor Learning Experiments- such curves are
often loosely termed learning curves, as it is
tempting to regard the changes in
performance as reflecting the product of the
internal capability for movement generated
by learning.
- The notion that these curves “mirror”
the internal state (the amount of
habit) is oversimplified, however, and
scientists are very cautious about
interpreting the changes in curves like
as a reflection of the amount of motor
learning. Some reasons for this
caution are outlined next.
Performance Measures- The first reason
performance curves perhaps should not be
assumed to reflect learning is that skilled
performance —not the capability for moving
skillfully—is plotted as a function of trials.
Since the capability (habit) cannot be
measured directly, any change in habit that
has occurred must be inferred from the
changes in performance.
Between-Participant Variability- A second
problem in making inferences about learning
from performance curves is that they are
insensitive to the differences in individuals
that arise as a function of practice. Consider
how a performance curve is produced. A large
number of people (the larger the better,
usually) is used.
- learning might sometimes occur as
more of an abrupt “revolution” than a
gradual “evolution” in the ways in
which the participants perform the
task.
Within-Participant Variability- one of the
important aspects of the averaging procedure
is the reduction of errors in measurement and
of factors that seem to obscure the “true”
capabilities of the people on a particular trial.
Ceiling and Floor Effects- are a third kind of
problem that can lead to erroneous
conclusions about learning processes from
group performance curves; these are present
in many of the tasks used in motor learning
experiments. In most tasks, absolute scores
exist that no person will ever exceed.
Scoring Sensitivity and the Shape of
Performance Curves- The primary problem is
that the “rate” of progress (the slope of the
performance curve) toward some ceiling (or
floor) is usually quite arbitrary and dependent
on the ways in which the task is measured.
The rate does not seem directly linked to the
rate of change in the capability for movement
that underlies this change in behavior.
Implications for Experiments on Learning-
These considerations present strong
limitations on what can be understood from
experiments on learning, often making it
impossible to provide clear interpretations
about what happened to habit in the study.
Designing Experiments on Learning
One of the major goals in the study of motor
learning is to understand which independent
variables are involved in maximizing learning,
which variables impair learning, and which
have no effect whatsoever. Clearly, such
knowledge is important both for the
development of useful theories of learning
and for practical application in teaching and
other learning situations.
Transfer or Retention Designs- quite similar,
and often the terms are used interchangeably
by researchers to refer to the same test.
Involve two related operations;
First, the learners are provided a retention
interval (or rest period away from practicing
the task) of sufficient duration that the
transient effects of the experimental variable
(here, the practice method) will dissipate.
Second feature is that the learners are all
tested under a common level of the
independent variable—that is, under identical
conditions.
Retention tests- tests involving the same task
as practiced in the acquisition phase.
Transfer tests- typically involve new
variations of the tasks practiced in acquisition.
“new” method- (the open circles) exerts an
effect that tends to increase the performance
measure.
“old” method (the filled circles)
Double-Transfer Designs- the two acquisition
groups are each split into two subgroups for
the retention test.
Learning and Performance Variables- this
kind of variable has effects on performance
while it is present, but when the level is
altered in transfer, the effect is altered as
well.
A performance variable is thus one that
influences performance but not in a
“relatively permanent” way. Using the
analogy presented earlier, cooling water to
make ice is only a “performance variable” and
not a “learning variable” because the effect of
the variable vanishes when it is taken away.
Learning variable- affects performance after
the variable has been removed. The variable
influences performance in a “relatively
permanent” way, affecting the learning of the
task.
Using Alternative Methods to Measure
Learning
Many situations exist in which the
measurement of performance, and thus the
measurement of learning, does not give a
good estimate of the relative “amount” that
someone has learned in practice.
Simple tasks- for which all persons perform
nearly maximally in only a few practice trials.
Continued practice can result in no effects on
the performance score.
Complex task- those that people have had a
great deal of experience with in the past, such
as driving a car. Because people are so well
practiced, little improvement in skills will be
evidenced as they continue to practice.
Secondary Tasks and Alternative Learning
Measures
The measurement of performance on a task
often does not tell us much about the
person’s level of learning.
Automaticity and Learning- received
considerable empirical support is that skills
become more automatic.
Effort and Learning- Closely related to the
notion of automaticity is the notion of ef ort
(Kahneman, 1973)
- they appear to be able to do the task
with less and less physical and mental
effort, possibly because they learn to
 perform with more efficient
movements or because they process
information more efficiently.
Speed of Decision and Learning- which the
main task involves decision making, such as in
learning to make the correct movement when
one of several different stimuli is presented.
Memory and Learning- most experimental
psychologists define learning in terms of
memory, saying that something has been
learned when a person has a memory of it. In
this sense, memory and habit are very similar
constructs.
Memory is evident when one has learned a
skill or can perform it again at some time after
the original-practice session.
Kantak and Winstein (2012)- proposed an
empirically based framework that they
termed motor behavior–memory framework.
- This framework integrates the
temporal evolution of motor memory
processes with the time course of
practice and delayed retention
frequently used in behavioral motor
learning paradigms.
Generalizability as a Learning Criterion
Generalizability—the extent to which practice
on one task contributes to the performance of
other, related skills, perhaps in different
contexts.
Understanding Issues About the “Amount” of
Learning
On the basis of experiments on learning,
researchers are often tempted to make
statements phrased in terms of the amount of
learning that has occurred as a result of
practice.
Group Differences- where practice tends to
increase the scores on the task.
Individual Differences- The problem just
raised is similar in many respects to that of
comparing the amount learned by one person
to the amount learned by another person.
Bachman, 1961, and many others- This is a
common problem in the study of individual
differences in learning, as sometimes it is of
interest to determine whether or not some
measure of an ability correlates with the
amount that someone will learn.
“Rate” of Learning
We have argued that using scores from
acquisition data to calculate measures of
“amount” of learning leads to many problems
in interpretation. A problem similar to those
already noted arises in the measure of “rate”
of learning. The idea of a learning rate has
been common in sport folklore (“so-and-so is
a fast learner”).
Understanding Learning and Performance
Variables
The problem of identifying which of the many
independent variables are critical for learning,
and which are relevant only for performance,
is important not only for development and
testing of theories of motor learning but also
for application to a variety of practical
situations.
Importance for Theory- Learning theories
make predictions about how certain
independent variables will affect learning.
Importance for Application- A second
practical outcome is that knowledge about
which variables affect performance
temporarily, and which affect learning, allows
the production of more effective settings for
instruction in various motor tasks in sport,
industry, therapy, and so on.
Chapter 12 The Learning Process
A part of this process is theoretical, in that we
search for a fundamental understanding—
stated as theories—of how the system
“works” when it learns. But part of it is
practical, in that a solid understanding of the
system’s function provides suggestions for
practical application to situations that have
not actually been studied; there is nothing as
practical as a good theory (Kerlinger, 1973).
Stages of Motor Learning
- the most notable thing that happens
when people practice is that they
demonstrate increased proficiency in
the task.
Bryan and Harter (1897, 1899)- were among
the first to study the acquisition of skill in
considerable detail (see “Bryan and Harter’s
Hierarchy of Habits”).
Snoddy (1926)- Learning was defined as a
two-stage process:
- the adaptation stage involved
acquisition of the neuromuscular
pattern required to perform the task.
- the facilitation stage involved
improving the efficiency of the
pattern
Other two-stage views were later suggested
by Adams (1971) and Gentile (1972).
A three-stage view of learning was suggested
by Fitts (1964; Fitts & Posner, 1967) and later
Anderson (1982, 1995).
- Cognitive
- Fixation
- Autonomous stages
However, remind yourself that these stages
are not discrete and fixed stages, but have
“fuzzy” borders (see Anson, Elliott, & Davids,
2005, for an excellent discussion of Fitts’
stages of learning).
“Bryan and Harter’s Hierarchy of Habits”
William Lowe Bryan (a psychologist) and
Noble Harter (a telegrapher and student of
Bryan’s)- A fascinating early set of studies
regarding the perceptual and motor changes
that occur with learning was conducted.
Bryan & Harter, 1897, 1899- The result of
their shared interests was two landmark
papers regarding the acquisition of
telegraphic skills.
Bryan and Harter presented the results of
experiments that compared novice and expert
telegraphers, as well as data they obtained by
charting the acquisition of telegraphy skill
over many months of practice.
Lee & Swinnen, 1993- These papers present
many interesting findings, but we will focus
on one in particular.
Bryan and Harter’s view, was a process of
achieving a hierarchy of habits.
Telegraphy involves the ability to discriminate
(perceptually and motorically) between units
of time
A dot is one “unit” of continuous auditory
signal.
A dash is three “units” of continuous time.
This “language” of telegraphy lent itself well
to Bryan and Harter’s view of learning as a
hierarchy of habits. The discrimination of time
was learned quickly.
: Periods of time would go by during which
little or no improvement occurred at all,
which were followed later by rapid
improvements.
They called these periods plateaus in
performance that occur prior to the formation
of a new, advanced capability.
They proposed that rather than hearing dots
and dashes, with learning, the telegraphers
“hear” letters. With further practice they then
“hear” words, and, for the most skilled,
“hear” even larger units of a sentence.
Stage 1: Cognitive- When the learner is new
to a task, the primary problem to be solved
concerns what is to be done—that is, what
actions need to be taken in order to achieve
the goal of the task? Naturally, considerable
cognitive activity is required so that the
learner can determine appropriate strategies
to try to get the movement in the “ballpark.”
Adams (1971) termed this stage the verbal–
motor stage.
Stage 2: Fixation- g begins when the
individual has determined the most effective
way of doing the task and starts to make
more subtle adjustments in how the skill is
performed.
Adams, 1971; Fitts, 1964- think that the
verbal aspects of the task have largely
dropped out by this stage, with the performer
concentrating on how to do the action rather
than on which (of many) movement patterns
should be produced. This stage and the next
(autonomous) are equivalent to what
- Adams called the motor stage.
Stage 3: Autonomous- the learner enters the
autonomous stage, so named because the
skill has become largely automatic.
- for example, the concert pianist who
can shadow digits or do mental
arithmetic without interference while
sight-reading and playing the piano
(e.g., Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds,
1972; Shaffer, 1971, 1980).
Some efforts at understanding the principles
of automaticity have been made in this
direction by Schneider and colleagues
(Schneider & Fisk, 1983; Schneider & Shiffrin,
1977) in reaction-time (RT) tasks, and
by Logan (1985, 1988) using speeded-decision
tasks.
Unfortunately, research involving more
complex motor tasks is rarely taken to this
stage of learning (but see Jabusch, Alpers,
Kopiez, Vauth, & Altenmüller, 2009, for a
recent exception).
Closed-Loop Theory
Adams (1971) developed his closed-loop
theory of motor learning using a well-
established set of empirical laws of motor
learning, most of which were based on slow,
arm-positioning movements.
He believed that the principles of
performance and learning that applied to
these movements were the same as for any
other kind of movement, and that using a
well-established set of empirical laws from
positioning movements would produce a solid
basis for theorizing
A Feedback Emphasis
Adams believed that all movements are made
by comparing the ongoing feedback from the
limbs to a perceptual trace—the reference of
correctness, stored in memory, which is
learned during practice.
To Adams, KR provides information to solve
the motor problem.
Limitations and Contradictory Evidence
Adams viewed the perceptual trace as
providing:
(a) the basis for placing the limb at the
correct target location
(b) a basis for the performer to detect
how far that movement was away
from the target location after the
movement has been completed.
Schmidt (1975b)- argued that, if the
perceptual trace is used to position the limb,
then no additional information can be
available about the amount of actual error
produced.
Schmidt and Russell (1974; Nicholson &
Schmidt, 1991)- provided evidence that no
error-detection mechanism exists after the
completion of slow positioning movements,
even after 100 trials of practice, contrary to
Adams’ predictions.
Schmidt and White (1972; Nicholson &
Schmidt, 1991)- found strong error-detection
mechanisms after rapid movements, for
which the perceptual trace presumably
cannot be used to guide the limb during the
movement.
Adams’ theory was provided by the literature
on variability of practice.
Adams’ theory predicts that variability of
practice should be less effective for learning
the criterion target than is practice at the
target itself.
Role of KR in Adams’ theory- to guide the
learner to making the correct movement.
Schema Theory
Schmidt (1975b) formulated a theory that
was considered an alternative to Adams. The
primary concern with the Adams position was
the lack of emphasis on open-loop control
processes, and the schema theory has a
strong open-loop component.
Recall and Recognition Memory
Recall memory- responsible for the
production of movement.
Recognition memory- responsible for
movement evaluation.
Schema Learning
The schema concept is an old one in
psychology, having been introduced by Head
(1926) and later popularized by Bartlett
(1932).
- Schema was an abstract memory
representation thought of as a rule,
concept, or generalization.
- Schmidt (1975b) attempted to use
the basic idea of the schema (or rule)
to form a theory of how motor skills
are learned.
Generalized Motor Program (GMP)-
structured with invariant features (such as
relative timing)
4 TYPES OF INFORMATION
(1) information about the initial conditions
(bodily positions, weight of thrown objects,
and so on) that existed before the movement
was made;
(2) the parameters assigned to the GMP,
(3) augmented feedback about the outcome
of the movement; and
(4) the sensory consequences of the
movement—how the movement felt, looked,
sounded, and so on.
Recall Schema- it is concerned with
movement production.
Recognition Schema- for movement
evaluation, is thought to be formed and used
in a way similar to the recall schema.
Expected sensory consequences-serve as the
basis for movement evaluation.
Some Predictions About Schema Learning
 The theory says that we acquire skills,
at least in part, by learning rules
about the functioning of our bodies—
forming relationships between how
our muscles are activated, what they
actually do, and how those actions
feel.
 According to schema theory, there
are positive benefits from the
production of movements whether
they are correct or not. This is so
because the schema is the rule based
on the interrelatedness of all stored
elements, and this relationship is
present just as much for incorrect
movements as for correct ones.
Variability of Practice (by using a variety
of parameters provide)- a widely based
set of experiences upon which a rule or
schema can form.
Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) found
considerable evidence that practice
variability is a positive factor in motor
learning.
Novel Movements (specified by a particular
value of the parameter)- not have been
produced previously in order to be produced
in the future.
Especial Skills
The set shot in basketball provides an
interesting “test” of schema theory.
Keetch, Schmidt, Lee, and Young (2005)-
players from college basketball team
participants who probably had performed
many thousands of free throws in practice
and games.
Error Detection is actually used to produce
the slow movement, leaving behind no
capability with which to detect errors.
- The error-detection process is not
responsible for producing the action,
and it evaluates the correctness of
the action only after the movement
has been completed.
Limitations and Logical Problems- represents
both a major strength and major limitation of
the theory.
Knowledge-of-Results Frequency-
Strengthening of the schema depends on the
learner’s knowledge of the movement
outcome, so higher levels of KR relative
frequency would be expected to enhance
schema learning as compared to lower levels.
Contextual Interference and Cognitive
Operations- variable practice would result in
stronger rule learning than non-variable (or
constant) practice, and evidence supports
that general prediction.
Differing Theoretical Perspectives of Motor
Learning
Cognitive Perspectives- emphasized the role
of memory structures in skill, the learning
process depended on movement repetition
and feedback.
- closed-loop theory (Adams, 1971)
- schema theory (Schmidt, 1975)
(Lee, Swinnen, & Serrien, 1994; Sherwood &
Lee, 2003; Vickers, Livingston, Umeris-
Bohnert, & Holden, 1999)- suggesting that
the effort with which the cognitive processes
were undertaken had a critical impact on
learning.
Wulf & Shea, 2002- they appear to have a
strong dependence on the nature of the task
and the experience level of the participant.
Guadagnoli and Lee (2004)- suggested that
cognitive processing during practice is
affected by the degree to which the
participant is challenged during the practice
period.
Hierarchical Control Perspectives- a change
occurs such that motor control is shifted to
progressively “lower” levels in the nervous
system.
The idea that motor behavior is hierarchical
means that some:
“higher” level in the system is responsible for
decision making and
some “lower” level is responsible for carrying
out the decisions.
Pew (1966)- used a tracking task in which the
participant controlled the movement of a dot
on a monitor by pressing one or the other of
two buttons.
Compensatory tracking task- participant’s
task was to keep the dot in the center.
Progression–Regression Hypothesis
Fitts, Bahrick, Noble, and Briggs (1959)-
particular relevance to tracking tasks is a
hypothesis presented about how changes in
motor behavior occur with practice.
In designing servo systems to regulate some
mechanical system, engineers can devise a
simple system that responds to:
(a) only the position of the track,
(b) the position and velocity, or
(c) the position, velocity, and acceleration.
Progression–regression hypothesis-
presented by Fitts and colleagues (1959) holds
that, when the learner practices a tracking
task, a progression develops in the learner’s
behavior in the direction of acting more and
more like a complex tracking system.
Fuchs (1962)- found that the role of position
cues in tracking decreased with practice,
while the role of acceleration cues increased;
and these effects were reversed when a
secondary task was added to induce stress
(see also Garvey, 1960).
(Hah & Jagacinski, 1994; Jagacinski & Hah,
1988; Marteniuk & Romanow, 1983)-
improved on the methods used in the earlier
work and have provided additional evidence
for a shift in movement control consistent
with the hypothesis.
Creating Motor Programs- many changes
occur in our movements when they are
subjected to practice, with actions tending to
become more consistent, smoother, less
effortful, and more routine or automatic with
experience.
Acquisition of Movement Pattern
Consistency- the movement outcomes tend
to become more consistent, predictable, and
certain with experience.
Changes in the trial-to-trial consistency of
these measures have been noted in an
impressive variety of tasks:
- Driving (Lewis, 1956)
- Throwing (Stimpel, 1933)
- Handwheel cranking (Glencross,
1973)
- Table tennis (Tyldesley & Whiting,
1975)
- Tracking (Darling & Cooke, 1987;
Franks & Wilberg, 1984)
- Keyboarding (Salthouse, 1986)
- Bimanual coordination (Lee,
Swinnen, & Verschueren, 1995)
Acquisition of Sequencing: The Gearshift
Analogy
- It involves the ways in which
movements are sequenced.
MacKay (1976, personal communication)
suggested that motor programs might be
generated by stringing together smaller
programmed units of behavior so that
eventually this string of behavior is
controllable as a single unit—such as in
learning to shift gears in a car.
- He suggested that the various
elements are learned in a progressive
way to form the entire action
Combinations of Reflexes
Easton, 1972, 1978- Another way that motor
programs are thought to be formed in
practice is through the combination of
fundamental reflexes.
Easton held that the “commands” are really
ways of controlling the preexisting reflexes.
The Bernstein Perspective
The concept is that learning involves a process
of solving the 550 degrees of freedom
problem—discovering ways in which the
independent parts of the moving body can be
organized in order to achieve a task goal.
According to Bernstein (1967), the stages of
learning involve:
(a) freezing degrees of freedom,
(b) releasing and reorganizing degrees of
freedom, and
(c) exploiting the mechanical and inertial
properties of the body.
Stage 1: Freezing Degrees of Freedom-
practice the learner attempts to “freeze” as
many of the degrees of freedom as possible,
allowing as few as possible of the body parts
to move independently.
Stage 2: Releasing and Reorganizing Degrees
of Freedom- the constraints on the degrees of
freedom are loosened, allowing both for
greater independent motion and for a higher
level of success.
Stage 3: Exploiting the Mechanical–Inertial
Properties of the Limbs- the alteration of
movement control so that the motor system
can take advantage of (or exploit) the built-in
mechanical–inertial properties of the limbs.
Haken-Kelso-Bunz Model
- the performance of discrete tasks
appears to be fundamentally different
when compared to performance of
continuous tasks.
- HKB model states that intrinsic
stabilities of the motor system attract
moving degrees of freedom to
perform in accordance with one of
the system’s naturally stable states.
- The self-organization approach, which
was critical in the development of the
HKB model, overcame some of the
problems associated with “novel
tasks” and provided many advantages
for the study of motor learning.
Continuous motor skills are more dependent
on interactions with the environmental
stimuli for their regulation.
OPTIMAL Theory
OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance Through
Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for
Learning)
In this theory, two key motivational variables
are enhanced expectancies for future
performance and learner autonomy.
Motivation- generally related to the direction
and intensity of behavior.
Enhanced Expectancies- According to the
OPTIMAL theory (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016),
high expectancies for future performance
prepare the learner for successful movement
at various levels, including cognitive,
motivational, neurophysiological, and
neuromuscular levels.
McKay, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015- Lack of
confidence tends to act as a self-invoking
trigger.
(Deci & Ryan, 2008; Leotti, Iyengar, &
Ochsner, 2010)- Practice conditions that make
movement success likely support a
psychological or biological need for
competence.
Schultz, 2013- They also tend to be
experienced as rewarding and to elicit
dopaminergic responses
Wise, 2004- Dopaminergic systems subserve
brain activity relevant to motor, cognitive, and
motivational functioning.
Dopaminergic activity- is predominantly
associated with expected success or reward,
some dopamine neurons seem to be sensitive
to negative events.
Autonomy- practice conditions in which
learners have a certain degree of autonomy,
such as those in which they are given choices,
facilitate learning relative to more controlling
conditions.
Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016- learner autonomy
is assumed to contribute to enhanced
expectancies.
Lee & Reeve, 2013- Opportunities to act
autonomously seem to be related to
activation in brain regions that are associated
with a sense of agency.
(Aarts, Bijleveld, Custers, Dogge, Deelder,
Schutter, & Haren, 2012)- Having a sense of
agency is associated with dopamine release
Reeve & Tseng, 2011- Controlling conditions,
in which learners do not feel autonomous,
tend to be stressful.
Montoya, Bos, Terburg, Rosenberger, & van
Honk, 2014- The stress hormone cortisol has a
downregulatory effect on the brain’s reward
network.
Legault and Inzlicht (2013) showed that
autonomy was associated with greater
sensitivity to task errors relative to controlling
conditions, and it resulted in enhanced
performance.
Grand, Bruzi, Dyke, Godwin, Leiker,
Thompson et al. (2015) found enhanced
information processing, higher intrinsic
motivation, and more effective motor learning
under autonomy-supportive practice
conditions (self-controlled feedback) relative
to a yoked control condition.
External Focus of Attention- an external focus
of attention is another important contributor
to goal–action coupling.
Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001- an external
focus is assumed to facilitate neural
connections that are critical for optimal
performance.
Goal–Action Coupling- Motor learning is
associated with structural brain changes, as
well as in functional connections across brain
regions (Taubert, Lohmann, Margulies,
Villringer, & Ragert, 2011).
Functional connectivity-refers to task-specific
neural connections across distinct brain
regions that are seen in skilled performers.
Salience network (Menon, 2015)- The
switching to neural networks that are
necessary for successful task performance—
and away from the default mode network,
which supports self- referential processing
and mind wandering (Buckner, 2012)
Predictions and Practical Implications
Predictions of the OPTIMAL Theory
- When temporally associated with skill
practice, conditions that enhance
expectancies for positive outcomes
trigger dopaminergic responses and
thereby benefit motor performance.
- Enhanced expectancies and
autonomy support contribute to
efficient goal–action coupling by
readying the motor system for task
execution.
- Autonomy support facilitates
performance by enhancing
expectancies.
- An external focus of attention directs
attention to the task goal, enhancing
goal–action coupling.
- An internal focus of attention
impedes performance by directing
attention to the self.
- Movement success resulting from an
external focus enhances expectancies
for future success.
- Enhanced expectancies and
autonomy support facilitate motor
learning by making dopamine
available for memory consolidation
and neural pathway development.
- Challenge, in the context of prevailing
success, elicits a potentiating
dopaminergic response that
contributes to learning beyond
success or challenge alone.
- Higher expectancies facilitate efficient
switching from the default mode
network to motor networks
associated with the movement skill.
- An external attentional focus
facilitates efficient switching from the
default mode network to relevant
motor networks.
- An internal attentional focus impedes
efficient switching from the default
mode network to motor networks
associated with the movement skill.
- Generally, conditions that optimize
performance facilitate learning.
Wulf, Chiviacowsky et al., 2014- Studies that
examined combinations of enhanced
expectancies and autonomy support.
Pascua, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015- enhanced
expectancies and an external focus.

Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015-

autonomy support and an external focus.