Study on correlation between motor and memory learning


  • Davide Di Palma Parthenope University, Italy
  • Francesco Perrotta M.I.U.R. Campania, Italy
  • Domenico Tafuri Parthenope University, Italy


Attention, Memory, Motor learning


The Knowledge of the Result for motor learning, relationship between subjective estimation of the error and relative frequency of external feedback. Research on the learning of a motor task, although generally conducted on healthy individuals, can offer useful indications about the best strategies to be adopted in the rehabilitation of subjects with CNS lesions. In fact, rehabilitation can be considered as a learning process in pathological conditions. There are numerous experimental evidences that, a lower relative frequency (FR) with which it is provided to the one who learns the knowledge of the result (CR) about the outcome of the response, and the request of the formulation of a subjective estimate before the CR (SS) both positively affect the fixation of the motor task. Recently, however, the possibility of an interaction between these two variables has been suggested, in the sense that the subject, when he must formulate a subjective estimate of the error, would benefit from a greater, and not a lesser, FR. To verify this, 60 healthy young subjects (mean age 24.1 ± 3.2) performed a simple task of producing a concentric work target with flexed elbow muscles during isokinetic contraction at a rate of 30 degrees / second. During the practice trials, subjects a) were required, or were not required, to estimate the error made in the newly concluded trial, and b) CR was provided after each trial (100% FR) or after one in every five trials (20 % FR). To further stress the difference between the subjects who were or should not formulate an SS, the latter was asked, immediately after the conclusion of the trial, to perform a simple mental calculation. All subjects performed 15 sets of 10 repetitions of the task during a single practice session. A retention test (1 set of 10 repetitions without CR or SS) was performed the following day. The comparison between the groups in the retention test was performed with the analysis of the variance, before and after adjustment for the initial conditions. The results showed that, after adjusting for the initial conditions, the group of subjects who received CR with 100% FR and who had to formulate the SS during the practice period, performed the retention test in a significantly better way.


Download data is not yet available.


Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 3(2), 111-150.

Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychological bulletin, 101(1), 41.

Carnahan, H., Vandervoort, A. A., & Swanson, L. R. (1996). The influence of summary knowledge of results and aging on motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(3), 280-287.

Gable, C. D., Shea, C. H., & Wright, D. L. (1991). Summary knowledge of results. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 62(3), 285-292.

Guadagnoli, M. A., & Kohl, R. M. (2001). Knowledge of results for motor learning: relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. Journal of motor behavior, 33(2), 217-224.

Guadagnoli, M. A., Dornier, L. A., & Tandy, R. D. (1996). Optimal length for summary knowledge of results: the influence of task-related experience and complexity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(2), 239-248.

Kohl, R. M., & Shea, C. H. (1992). Pew (1966) revisited: Acquisition of hierarchical control as a function of observational practice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(3), 247-260.

Lai, Q., & Shea, C. H. (1999). Bandwidth knowledge of results enhances generalized motor program learning. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 70(1), 79-83.

Liu, J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (1997). The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(2), 145-151.

Nicholson, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1991, September). Scheduling information feedback to enhance training effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 35, No. 19, pp. 1400-1402). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological bulletin, 95(3), 355.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological review, 82(4), 225.

Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning & performance: From principles to practice. Human Kinetics Books.

Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological science, 3(4), 207-218.

Schmidt, R. A., Lange, C., & Young, D. E. (1990). Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning. Human Movement Science, 9(3-5), 325-348.

Shea, C. H., Shebilske, W., & Worchel, S. (1993). Motor learning and control. Prentice Hall.

Suddon, F. H., & Lavery, J. J. (1962). The effect of amount of training on retention of a simple motor skill with 0-and 5-trial delays of knowledge of results. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 16(4), 312.

Swinnen, S. P. (1996). for Motor Skill Learning: A Review. Advances in motor learning and control, 37.

Swinnen, S. P., Schmidt, R. A., Nicholson, D. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 706.

Vander Linden, D. W., Cauraugh, J. H., & Greene, T. A. (1993). The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. Physical Therapy, 73(2), 79-87.

Weeks, D. L., & Kordus, R. N. (1998). Relative frequency of knowledge of performance and motor skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 224-230.

Winstein, C. J. (1987). Motor learning considerations in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke rehabilitation: the recovery of motor control. Chicago: Year Book Medical, 109-34.

Winstein, C. J. (1991). Knowledge of results and motor learning—implications for physical therapy. Physical therapy, 71(2), 140-149.

Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 677.

Wishart, L. R., & Lee, T. D. (1997). Effects of aging and reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results on learning a motor skill. Perceptual and motor skills, 84(3), 1107-1122.

Yao, W. X., Fischman, M. G., & Wang, Y. T. (1994). Motor skill acquisition and retention as a function of average feedback, summary feedback, and performance variability. Journal of motor behavior, 26(3), 273-282.


Statistics RUA



How to Cite

Di Palma, D., Perrotta, F., & Tafuri, D. (2019). Study on correlation between motor and memory learning. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 14(5proc), S1950-S1962. Retrieved from