Simon Anja, Bock Otmar
a Institute of Physiology and Anatomy, German Sport University Cologne.
J Mot Behav. 2015;47(6):503-8. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2015.1015677. Epub 2015 Mar 31.
A new 3-stage model based on neuroimaging evidence is proposed by Chein and Schneider (2012). Each stage is associated with different brain regions, and draws on cognitive abilities: the first stage on creativity, the second on selective attention, and the third on automatic processing. The purpose of the present study was to scrutinize the validity of this model for 1 popular learning paradigm, visuomotor adaptation. Participants completed tests for creativity, selective attention and automated processing before attending in a pointing task with adaptation to a 60° rotation of visual feedback. To examine the relationship between cognitive abilities and motor learning at different times of practice, associations between cognitive and adaptation scores were calculated repeatedly throughout adaptation. The authors found no benefit of high creativity for adaptive performance. High levels of selective attention were positively associated with early adaptation, but hardly with late adaptation and de-adaptation. High levels of automated execution were beneficial for late adaptation, but hardly for early and de-adaptation. From this we conclude that Chein and Schneider's first learning stage is difficult to confirm by research on visuomotor adaptation, and that the other 2 learning stages rather relate to workaround strategies than to actual adaptive recalibration.
钱恩和施奈德(2012年)提出了一种基于神经影像学证据的新的三阶段模型。每个阶段都与不同的脑区相关,并借鉴了认知能力:第一阶段与创造力相关,第二阶段与选择性注意力相关,第三阶段与自动加工相关。本研究的目的是仔细审查该模型对一种流行的学习范式——视觉运动适应的有效性。参与者在参加一项适应视觉反馈60°旋转的指向任务之前,完成了创造力、选择性注意力和自动加工测试。为了检验不同练习时间点认知能力与运动学习之间的关系,在整个适应过程中反复计算认知分数与适应分数之间的关联。作者发现高创造力对适应性表现没有益处。高水平的选择性注意力与早期适应呈正相关,但与晚期适应和去适应几乎没有关系。高水平的自动执行对晚期适应有益,但对早期适应和去适应几乎没有帮助。由此我们得出结论,钱恩和施奈德的第一个学习阶段很难通过视觉运动适应研究得到证实,而且其他两个学习阶段与其说是与实际的适应性重新校准有关,不如说是与变通策略有关。