The Effectiveness of Concurrent Positive and Negative Visual Feedback on a Computerized Motor Task of Varying Difficulties

Main Article Content

Gal Ziv
Chen Odem


The purpose of this online study was to examine the effectiveness of concurrent positive and negative visual feedback on the performance of a rotary-pursuit task. One hundred and nine physical education students were randomly assigned to three groups: a positive feedback group (n = 37), a negative feedback group (n = 35), and a control group (no feedback; n = 37). The students participated from their own home computers and performed an easy, moderate, and difficult rotary-pursuit task. On Day 1, the participants performed a pre-test with no feedback and practiced eight trials of each level of difficulty with the assigned feedback. On Day 2, they practiced eight trials of each level of difficulty again. On Day 3, they practiced eight trials of each level of difficulty with feedback and performed a post-test with no feedback. Finally, the participants were asked to report their subjective assessment of the task difficulty. The main findings were that in the task of moderate difficulty, negative feedback led to the best performance during practice. In addition, regardless of the difficulty level, practicing with negative feedback led to the best performance in the post-test. The results suggest that task difficulty moderates the effects of feedback on performance and that providing concurrent negative visual feedback in a continuous task may be more advantageous.


Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
Ziv, G., & Odem, C. (2024). The Effectiveness of Concurrent Positive and Negative Visual Feedback on a Computerized Motor Task of Varying Difficulties. Communications in Kinesiology, 1(6). (Original work published February 15, 2024)
Sensorimotor Control


Abbas, Z. A., & North, J. S. (2018). Good-vs. poor-trial feedback in motor learning: The role of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation across levels of task difficulty. Learning and Instruction, 55, 105–112.

Abe, M., Schambra, H., Wassermann, Eric M., Luckenbaugh, D., Schweighofer, N., & Cohen, Leonardo G. (2011). Reward Improves Long-Term Retention of a Motor Memory through Induction of Offline Memory Gains. Current Biology, 21(7), 557–562.

Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2019). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407.

Badami, R., Vaezmousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2012). Feedback About More Accurate Versus Less Accurate Trials: Differential Effects on Self-Confidence and Activation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 196–203.

Beierholm, U., Guitart-Masip, M., Economides, M., Chowdhury, R., Düzel, E., Dolan, R., & Dayan, P. (2013). Dopamine Modulates Reward-Related Vigor. Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(8), 1495–1503.

Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2016). Temporal-comparative feedback affects motor learning. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 4(2), 208–218.

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback After Good Trials Enhances Learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(2), 40–47.

Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Wally, R., & Borges, T. (2009). Knowledge of Results After Good Trials Enhances Learning in Older Adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(3), 663–668.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & 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.

Galea, J. M., Mallia, E., Rothwell, J., & Diedrichsen, J. (2015). The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning. Nature Neuroscience, 18(4), 597–602.

Galea, J. M., Vazquez, A., Pasricha, N., Orban de Xivry, J.-J., & Celnik, P. (2010). Dissociating the Roles of the Cerebellum and Motor Cortex during Adaptive Learning: The Motor Cortex Retains What the Cerebellum Learns. Cerebral Cortex, 21(8), 1761–1770.

Goudini, R., Saemi, E., Ashrafpoornavaee, S., & Abdoli, B. (2018). The effect of feedback after good and poor trials on the continuous motor tasks learning. Acta Gymnica, 48(1), 3–8.

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.

Halperin, I., Ramsay, E., Philpott, B., Obolski, U., & Behm, D. G. (2020). The effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on repeated force production. Physiology & Behavior, 225, 113086.

Hinder, M. R., Riek, S., Tresilian, J. R., Rugy, A. de, & Carson, R. G. (2009). Real-time error detection but not error correction drives automatic visuomotor adaptation. Experimental Brain Research, 201(2), 191–207.

Jamieson, J. (2004). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with difference scores. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52(3), 277–283.

JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.16.2)[Computer software].

Lohse, K., Miller, M., Bacelar, M., & Krigolson, O. (2019). Errors, rewards, and reinforcement in motor skill learning. In Skill acquisition in sport (pp. 39–60). Routledge.

Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.3)[computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Ghotbi-Varzaneh, A., Zarghami, M., & Maleki, F. (2012). Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(4), 378–382.

Saemi, E., Wulf, G., Varzaneh, A. G., & Zarghami, M. (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances motor learning in children. Revista Brasileira de Educação Fı́sica e Esporte, 25(04), 673–681.

Saijo, N., & Gomi, H. (2010). Multiple Motor Learning Strategies in Visuomotor Rotation. PLoS ONE, 5(2), e9399.

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), 355–386.

Sattelmayer, M., Elsig, S., Hilfiker, R., & Baer, G. (2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. BMC Medical Education, 16(1).

Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Human kinetics.

Schmidt, R. A., & Wulf, G. (1997). Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(4), 509–525.

Shmuelof, L., Huang, V. S., Haith, A. M., Delnicki, R. J., Mazzoni, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2012). Overcoming Motor “Forgetting” Through Reinforcement Of Learned Actions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(42), 14617–14621a.

Sidaway, B., Bates, J., Occhiogrosso, B., Schlagenhaufer, J., & Wilkes, D. (2012). Interaction of Feedback Frequency and Task Difficulty in Children’s Motor Skill Learning. Physical Therapy, 92(7), 948–957.

Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2012). Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 21–53.

Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013). Terminal Feedback Outperforms Concurrent Visual, Auditory, and Haptic Feedback in Learning a Complex Rowing-Type Task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(6), 455–472.

Tseng, Y., Diedrichsen, J., Krakauer, J. W., Shadmehr, R., & Bastian, A. J. (2007). Sensory Prediction Errors Drive Cerebellum-Dependent Adaptation of Reaching. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98(1), 54–62.

Walsh, C. M., Ling, S. C., Wang, C. S., & Carnahan, H. (2009). Concurrent Versus Terminal Feedback: It May Be Better to Wait. Academic Medicine, 84(Supplement), S54–S57.

Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185–211.

Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., & Matschiner, S. (1998). Frequent Feedback Enhances Complex Motor Skill Learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30(2), 180–192.