Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 643–650 | Cite as

A safety mechanism for observational learning

Brief Report

Abstract

This empirical article presents the first evidence of a “safety mechanism” based on an observational-learning paradigm. It is accepted that during observational learning, a person can use different strategies to learn a motor skill, but it is unknown whether the learner is able to circumvent the encoding of an uncompleted observed skill. In this study, participants were tested in a dyadic protocol in which an observer watched a participant practicing two different motor sequences during a learning phase. During this phase, one of the two motor sequences was interrupted by a stop signal that precluded motor learning. The results of the subsequent retention test revealed that both groups learned the two motor sequences, but only the physical practice group showed worse performance for the interrupted sequence. The observers were consequently able to use a safety strategy to learn both sequences equally. Our findings are discussed in light of the implications of the action observation network for sequence learning and the cognitive mechanisms of error-based observation.

Keywords

Motor sequence Observational learning Learning strategy 

References

  1. Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. (2013). Observation learning of a motor task: Who and when? Experimental Brain Research, 229, 125–137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. (2014). Mixed observation favors motor learning through better estimation of the model’s performance. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 3121–3132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Badets, A., & Blandin, Y. (2010). Feedback schedules for motor-skill learning: The similarities and differences between physical and observational practice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42, 257–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Badets, A., Blandin, Y., Bouquet, C., & Shea, C. H. (2006). The intention superiority effect in motor-skill performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 491–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Badets, A., & Osiurak, F. (2015). A goal-based mechanism for delayed motor intention: Considerations from motor skills, tool use and action memory. Psychological Research, 79, 345–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Behne, T., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Unwilling versus unable: Infants’ understanding of intentional action. Developmental Psychology, 41, 328–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Boutin, A., Fries, U., Panzer, S., Shea, C. H., & Blandin, Y. (2010). Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and coding. Acta Psychologica, 135, 240–251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. J. (2015). Perceptual estimates of motor skill proficiency are constrained by the stability of coordination patterns. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47, 453–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., & Heyes, C. M. (2014). Mirror neurons: From origin to function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 177–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Franceschini, M., Agosti, M., Cantagallo, A., Sale, P., Mancuso, M., & Buccino, G. (2010). Mirror neurons: Action observation treatment as a tool in stroke rehabilitation. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46, 517–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. J., Elliott, D., Andrew, M., Roberts, J. W., & Bennett, S. J. (2012). Dissociable contributions of motor–execution and action–observation to intramanual transfer. Experimental Brain Research, 221, 459–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Heyes, C. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253–261. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01661-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., Hayes, S. J., & Breslin, G. (2007). What is modelled during observational learning? Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 531–545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Suppl), 14.Google Scholar
  16. Lewin, K. (1961). Intention, will, and need. In T. Shipley (Ed. & Trans.), Classics in psychology (pp. 1234–1288). New York, NY: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  17. Loucks, J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2013). Goals influence memory and imitation for dynamic human action in 36-month-old children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 41–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäntylä, T., & Sgaramella, T. (1997). Interrupting intentions: Zeigarnik-like effects in prospective memory. Psychological Research, 60, 192–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maslovat, D., Hodges, N. J., Krigolson, O. E., & Handy, T. C. (2010). Observational practice benefits are limited to perceptual improvements in the acquisition of a novel coordination skill. Experimental Brain Research, 204, 119–130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838–850.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Press, C. (2011). Action observation and robotic agents: Learning and anthropomorphism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1410–1418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2011). Learning through observation: A combination of expert and novice models favors learning. Experimental Brain Research, 215, 183–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Seifert, C. M., & Patalano, A. L. (1991, July). Memory for incomplete tasks: A re-examination of the Zeigarnik effect. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  25. Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32, 27–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Subiaul, F., Patterson, E. M., & Barr, R. (2016). The cognitive structure of goal emulation during the preschool years. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34, 132–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas, R., Sink, J., & Haggard, P. (2013). Sensory effects of action observation: Evidence for perceptual enhancement driven by sensory rather than motor simulation. Experimental Psychology, 60, 335–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Whiten, A., & Ham, R. (1992). On the nature and evolution of imitation in the animal kingdom: Reappraisal of a century of research. Advances in the Study of Behaviour, 11, 239–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeigarnik, B. (1927). Uber das Behalten von erledigten und unerledigten Handlungen [On the retention of completed and uncompleted transactions]. Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnaud Badets
    • 1
  • Arnaud Boutin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Michelet
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.CNRS, Institut de Neurosciences Cognitives et Intégratives d’Aquitaine (UMR 5287)Université de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Unité de Neuroimagerie FonctionnelleC.R.I.U.G.M.MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Université de MontréalMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Institut des Maladies NeurodégénérativesUniversité de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  5. 5.Institut des Maladies NeurodégénérativesCNRSBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations