title: An effective model for observational learning to improve novel motor performance.
abstract: [Purpose] To investigate whether for observational learning involving a ball rotation task, an unskilled model showing clumsy finger movements is more effective than a skilled model‏. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty-six young adults were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The unskilled model observation group observed a video of a ball rotation task practiced by a person for a short time. The skilled model observation group observed another video of the same task practiced by the person for a relatively long time. The non-observation group did not observe any video. Regarding rotation speed, the unskilled model was faster than the participants' but slower than the skilled model. The unskilled model had the highest number of ball drops. [Results] After the observation, the unskilled model observation group showed significantly faster rotation speed than the other groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of ball drops. [Conclusion] An unskilled model whose performance is better than the participants' is beneficial for improving motor performance but a model showing less skill than the participants is not.
authors.affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Ryotokuji University, Japan.
authors.forename: Tsubasa
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kawasaki
authors.affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Ryotokuji University, Japan.
authors.forename: Hidefumi
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Aramaki
authors.affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Ryotokuji University, Japan; Department of Physical Therapy, Kasai Clinic of Orthopedic and Internal Medicine, Japan.
authors.forename: Ryosuke
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tozawa
keywords: Action observation; Model’s skill; Motor learning
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Sep 4;17(17):1527-31
references.pmid: 17716898
references.citation: J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2007;114(10):1265-78
references.pmid: 17579805
references.citation: Cortex. 2015 Mar;64:102-14
references.pmid: 25461711
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2005 Aug;15(8):1243-9
references.pmid: 15616133
references.citation: Sci Rep. 2014 Nov 11;4:6989
references.pmid: 25384755
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
references.pmid: 5146491
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2006 Oct 10;16(19):1905-10
references.pmid: 17027486
references.citation: J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Feb;26(2):215-8
references.pmid: 24648634
references.citation: Hum Mov Sci. 2005 Jun;24(3):446-63
references.pmid: 16099522
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2007;36 Suppl 2:T164-73
references.pmid: 17499164
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2002 Apr;55(2):593-607
references.pmid: 12047061
references.citation: J Phys Ther Sci. 2013 Jul;25(7):779-82
references.pmid: 24259851
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 25;7:807
references.pmid: 24324428
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2008 Sep;11(9):1109-16
references.pmid: 19160510
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1980 Jan;43(1):118-36
references.pmid: 7351547
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Feb;59(2):377-86
references.pmid: 16618640
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Jul 19;3:252
references.pmid: 22833732
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2003 Nov;90(5):3304-16
references.pmid: 14615433