Social Brain in Action Laboratory, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, UK; MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK.
Social Brain in Action Laboratory, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, UK; Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Cognition. 2019 Sep;190:170-183. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.015. Epub 2019 May 14.
Humans have a remarkable ability to learn by watching others, whether learning to tie an elaborate knot or play the piano. However, the mechanisms that translate visual input into motor skill execution remain unclear. It has been proposed that common cognitive and neural mechanisms underpin learning motor skills by physical and observational practice. Here we provide a novel test of the common mechanism hypothesis by testing the extent to which certain individual differences predict observational as well as physical learning. Participants (N = 92 per group) either physically practiced a five-element key-press sequence or watched videos of similar sequences before physically performing trained and untrained sequences in a test phase. We also measured cognitive abilities across participants that have previously been associated with rates of learning, including working memory and fluid intelligence. Our findings show that individual differences in working memory and fluid intelligence predict improvements in dissociable aspects of motor learning following physical practice, but not observational practice. Working memory predicts general learning gains from pre- to post-test that generalise to untrained sequences, whereas fluid intelligence predicts sequence-specific gains that are tied to trained sequences. However, neither working memory nor fluid intelligence predict training gains following observational learning. Therefore, these results suggest limits to the shared mechanism hypothesis of physical and observational learning. Indeed, models of observational learning need updating to reflect the extent to which such learning is based on shared as well as distinct processes compared to physical learning. We suggest that such differences could reflect the more intentional nature of learning during physical compared to observational practice, which relies to a greater extent on higher-order cognitive resources such as working memory and fluid intelligence.
人类具有通过观察他人来学习的非凡能力,无论是学习打复杂的结还是弹钢琴。然而,将视觉输入转化为运动技能执行的机制仍不清楚。有人提出,共同的认知和神经机制为通过身体实践和观察实践来学习运动技能提供了基础。在这里,我们通过测试某些个体差异在观察学习和身体学习中的预测程度,为共同机制假说提供了一个新的测试。参与者(每组 92 人)要么通过身体练习一个五元素按键序列,要么观看类似序列的视频,然后在测试阶段通过身体练习训练和未训练的序列。我们还在参与者中测量了与学习速度相关的认知能力,包括工作记忆和流体智力。我们的研究结果表明,工作记忆和流体智力的个体差异可以预测身体练习后运动学习的可分离方面的改善,但不能预测观察练习。工作记忆预测从预测试到后测试的一般学习收益,这些收益可以推广到未训练的序列,而流体智力则预测与训练序列相关的序列特异性收益。然而,无论是工作记忆还是流体智力,都不能预测观察学习后的训练收益。因此,这些结果表明,身体和观察学习的共同机制假说存在局限性。事实上,观察学习的模型需要更新,以反映与身体学习相比,这种学习在多大程度上基于共同的和独特的过程。我们认为,这种差异可能反映了与观察练习相比,身体练习中学习的更具意图性,而观察练习在更大程度上依赖于更高阶的认知资源,如工作记忆和流体智力。