Vol. 2 No. 2 (2019): International Journal of Aging Research
Research Articles

Investigation of Feedback Schedules on Speech Motor Learning in Older Adults

Phil Weir-Mayta, Ph.D.1; Kristie A. Spencer, Ph.D.2; Steven M. Bierer, Ph.D.3; Ayoub Daliri, Ph.D.4; Peter Ondish, Ph.C.5; Ashley France, M.S.2; Erika Hutchison, M.S.2; Caitlin Sears, M.S.2
1California State University Fullerton, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 800 N. State College Blvd. Suite 420, Fullerton, CA 92831; 2University of Washington, Dept. of Speech & Hearing Sciences, 1417 NE 42nd St. Seattle, WA 98105; 3University of Washington, Dept. of Otolaryngology, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA 98195; 4Arizona State University, College of Health Solutions, 550 N. 3rd St., Phoenix, AZ 85004; 5University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Psychology, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820
Keywords
  • motor learning, feedback, generalization, speech, limb
How to Cite
Phil Weir-Mayta, Ph.D.1; Kristie A. Spencer, Ph.D.2; Steven M. Bierer, Ph.D.3; Ayoub Daliri, Ph.D.4; Peter Ondish, Ph.C.5; Ashley France, M.S.2; Erika Hutchison, M.S.2; Caitlin Sears, M.S.2. (2019). Investigation of Feedback Schedules on Speech Motor Learning in Older Adults. International Journal of Aging Research, 2(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.28933/ijoar-2019-03-2006

Abstract

Background: The principles of motor learning (PML) emerged from studies of limb motor skills in healthy, young adults. The applicability of these principles to speech motor learning, and to older adults, is uncertain. Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine one PML, feedback frequency, and its effect on retention and generalization of a novel speech and comparable tracing task. Methods: Sixty older adults completed a speech motor learning task requiring the production of a novel phrase at speaking rates 2 times and 3 times slower than habitual rate. Participants also completed a limb motor learning task requiring the tracing of a sine wave 2x and 3x slower than habitual rate. Participants were randomly assigned to receive feedback every trial, every 5th trial, or every 10th trial. Mean absolute error was measured to examine immediate generalization, delayed generalization, and 2-day retention. Findings: Results suggested that feedback frequency did not have an effect on the retention and generalization of the speech or manual task, supporting the small but growing literature highlighting the constraints of generalizing the PML to other modalities and populations.

Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grants T32 DC000033, P30DC04661, and the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund (A70442) awarded to Dr. Kristie Spencer. The authors gratefully acknowledge Sara Savaglio, Christopher Woollcott, and all participants for their contributions to this study. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and only represents their views. 

References

1. Adams, S., & Page, A. (2000). Effects of selected practice and feedback variables on speech motor learning. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 8(4), 215-220.
2. Adams, S., Page, A., & Jog, M. (2002). Summary feedback schedules and speech motor learning in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 10(4), 215-220.
3. Austermann Hula, S., Maas, E., Ballard, K., & Schmidt, R. (2008). Effects of feedback frequency and timing on acquisition, retention, and transfer of speech skills in acquired apraxia of speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1088-1113.
4. Ballard, K.J., Granier, J.P., & Robin, D.A. (2000). Understandign the nature of apraxia of speech: Theory, analysis, and treatment. Aphasiology, 14(10), 969-995.
5. Bislick L. P., Weir P. C., Spencer K., Kendall D., & Yorkston K. M. (2012). Do principles of motor learning enhance retention and transfer of speech skills? A systematic review. Aphasiology, 26, 709–728.
6. 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.
7. Chaput, S., & Proteau, L. (1996). Modifications with aging in the role played by vision and proprioception for movement control. Experimental Aging Research, 22(1), 1-21.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
9. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
10. Dunham, P., Mueller, R. (1993). Effect of fading knowledge of results on acquisition, retention, and transfer of a simple motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1187–1192.
11. Ehsani, F., Abdollahi, I., Mohseni Bandpei, M.A., Zahiri, N., & Jaberzadeh, S. (2015). Motor learning and movement performance: Older versus younger adults. Basic Clinical Neuroscience, 6(4), 231-238.
12. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
14. Fraser, S.A., Li, K.Z., & Penhune, V.B. (2009). A comparison of motor-skill learning and retention in younger and older adults. Experiments in Brain Research, 195(3), 419-427.
15. Frensch, P. & Runger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 13-18.
16. Frensch, P.A. & Miner, C.S. (1994). Effects of presentation rate and of individual differences in short-term memory capacity on an indirect measure of serial learning. Memory and Cognition, 22, 95-110.
17. Gable, C. D., Shea, C.H., & Wright, D.L. (1991). Summary knowledge of results. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(3), 285-292.
18. Grimme, B., Fuchs, S., Perrier, P., & Schöner, G. (2011). Limb versus speech motor control: A conceptual review. Motor Control, 15(1), 5-33.
19. Guadagnoli, M.A., Leis, B., Van Gemmert, A.W., & Stelmach, G.E. (2002). The relationship between knowledge of results and motor learning in Parkinsonian patients. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 9(2), 89-95.
20. Howard, J. H., Howard, D.V. (2013). Aging mind and brain: Is implicit learning spared in healthy aging? Front Psychology, 4, 817.
21. Howard, J.H., Jr., Howard, D.V., Dennis, N.A., Yankovich, H., Vaidya, C.J. (2004). Implicit spatial contextual learning in healthy aging. Neuropsychology, 18, 124-134.
22. Jacewicz, E., Fox, R. A., & Wei, L. (2010). Between-speaker and within-speaker variation in speech tempo of American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 839-850.
23. Jamieson, B.A. & Rogers, W.A. (2000). Age-related effects of blocked and random practice schedules on learning a new technology. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Series, 55B(6), 343-353.
24. Kaipa, R. (2016). Is there an interaction between task complexity and practice variability in speech-motor learning? Annals of Neurosciences, 23, 134-138.
25. Katz, W. F., McNeil, M. R., & Garst, D. M. (2010). Treating apraxia of speech (AOS) with EMA-supplied visual augmented feedback. Aphasiology, 24(6-8), 826-837.
26. Kim, I. S., LaPointe, L. L., & Stierwalt, J. A. (2012). The effect of feedback and practice on the acquisition of novel speech behaviors. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 89-100.
27. King, B. R., Fogel, S.M., Albouy, G., Doyon, J. (2013). Neural correlates of the age-related changes in motor sequence learning and motor adaptation in older adults. Front Human Neuroscience, 7, 142.
28. Kraemer, H., Mintz, J., Noda, A., Tinklenberg, J., & Yesavage, J. (2006). Caution Regarding the Use of Pilot Studies to Guide Power Calculations for Study Proposals. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(5), 484-489.
29. Lai, Q. & Shea, C. (1998). Generalized motor program (GMP) learning: Effects of reduced frequency of knowledge of results and practice variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 51.
30. Lin, C-H.J., Wu, A., Udompholkul, P., and Knowlton, B.J. (2010). Contextual interference effects in sequence learning for young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 929-939.
31. Lowe, M., & Buchwald, A. (2017). The impact of feedback frequency on performance in a novel speech motor learning task. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 1712-1725.
32. Maas E., Butalla C. E., & Farinella K. A. (2012). Feedback frequency in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 239–257.
33. Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Hula, S. N. A., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 277-298.
34. Mathworks, 2007. Interface, C.G.U. MATLAB 7,.
35. Nemeth, D., & Janacsek, K. (2011). The dynamics of implicit skill consolidation in young and elderly adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B. Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66(1), 15.
36. Nicholson, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Scheduling information feedback to enhance training effectiveness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
37. Park, J.H., & Shea, C. H. (2003). Effect of practice on effector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(1), 33-40.
38. Park, J.H., & Shea, C. H. (2005). Sequence learning: Response structure and effector transfer. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(3), 387-419.
39. Preston, J.L., Leece, M.C., & Maas, E. (2017). Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech sound errors. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52(1), 80-94.
40. Rieckmann, A. (2010). Activation in striatum and medial temporal lobe during sequence learning in younger and older adults: Relations to performance. Neuroimage, 50, 1303-1312.
41. Rieckmann, A., Backman, L. (2009). Implicit learning in aging: Extant patterns and new directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19, 490-503.
42. Rodrique, K. M., Kennedy, K.M., & Raz, N. (2005). Aging and longitudinal change in perceptual-motor skill acquisition in healthy adults. Journal of Gerontology Behavioral Psychological Science, 60, 174-181.
43. Romano, J. C., Howard, J.H., & Howard, D.V. (2010). One-year retention of general and sequence-specific skills in a probabilistic, serial reaction time task. Memory, 18, 427-441.
44. Sadagopan, N. & Smith, A. (2013). Age differences in speech motor performance on a novel speech task. Journal of Speech, Languag and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1552-1566.
45. 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.
46. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3), 403-428.
47. Schmidt, R., Lee, Tim. (2014). Motor Learning and Performance: From principles to application (Vol. 5th Edition). Leeds, United Kingdom: Human Kinetics.
48. Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59-75). NY: Springer.
49. Schmidt, R. A., & Wulf, G. (1997). Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation. Human Factors, 39(4), 509-525.
50. Schulz, G. M., Stein, L., & Micallef, R. (2001). Speech motor learning: Preliminary data. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 15(1-2), 157-161
51. Seidler, A., Bernard, J.A., Burutolu T. B., Fling B. W., Gordon M. T., & Gwin J. T. (2010). Motor control and aging: Links to age-related brain structural, functional, and biochemical effects. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 34, 721-733.
52. Shea, C., Park, J., & Braden, H. (2006). Are related effects in sequential motor learning. Physical Therapy, 86, 478-488.
53. Sparrow, W., & Summers, J. (1992). Performance on trials without knowledge of results (KR) in reduced relative frequency presentations of KR. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(2), 197-209.
54. Sparrow W. A. (1995). Acquisition and retention effects of reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47, 97–104.
55. Spencer, K. A. (2007). Aberrant response preparation in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 15(1), 83-96.
56. Steinhauer, K., & Grayhack, J. P. (2000). The role of knowledge of results in performance and learning of a voice motor task. Journal of Voice, 14(2), 137-145.
57. Swanson, L. R., & Lee, T. D. (1992). Effects of aging and schedules of knowledge of results on motor learning. Journal of Gerontology, 47(6), P406-P411.
58. 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.
59. Tremblay, S, Houle, G., & Ostry, D.J. (2008). Specificity of speech motor learning. Journal of Neural Science, 28, 2426-2434.
60. 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.
61. Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2008). Motor-skill learning in older adults—a review of studies on age-related differences. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 5(1), 5.
62. Wambaugh, J.L., Nessler, C., Wright, S.,Mauszycki, S., & DeLong, C. (2016). Sound Production Treatment for acquired apraxia of speech: Effects of blocked and random practice on multisyllabic word production. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(5), 450-464.
63. Wambaugh, J. L., Nessler, C., Wright, S., & Mauszycki, S. (2014). Sound production treatment: Effects of blocked and random practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 225-245.
64. Wambaugh, J.L., Nessler, C., Cameron, R., & Mauszycki, S. (2013). Treatment for acquired apraxia of speech: Examination of treatment intensity and practice schedule. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 84-102.
65. 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.
66. Weeks, D. L., & Sherwood, D. E. (1994). A comparison of knowledge of results scheduling methods for promoting motor skill acquisition and retention. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(2), 136-142.
67. 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.
68. Wishart, L. R., Lee, T. D., Cunningham, S. J., & Murdoch, J. E. (2002). Age-related differences and the role of augmented visual feedback in learning a bimanual coordination pattern. Acta Psychologica, 110(2), 247-263.
69. Wishart L. R., & Lee T. D. (1997). Effect of aging and reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results on learning of a motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1107–1150.
70. Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., Schiller, E., & Ávila, L. T. G. (2010). Frequent external focus feedback enhances motor learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(190), 1-7.
71. Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R. A. (1997). Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 987.
72. Wulf, G., Shea, C. (2004). Understanding the role of augmented feedback: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In H. N. J. Williams A. M. (Ed.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 122-144). London: Routledge.
73. Wulf, G., Shea, C. Matschiner, S. (1998). Frequent feedback enhances complex motor skill learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 180-192.
74. Wulf G., Schmidt R. A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 748–757.
75. 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.
76. Young, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1992). Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(3), 261-273.