MOTOR SKILLS LEARNING AS A MODEL FOR VISCERAL LEARNING: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION.
Item
-
Title
-
MOTOR SKILLS LEARNING AS A MODEL FOR VISCERAL LEARNING: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION.
-
Identifier
-
AAI8401482
-
identifier
-
8401482
-
Creator
-
KLUGER, ALAN.
-
Contributor
-
Daniel V. Caputo
-
Date
-
1983
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology, Physiological
-
Abstract
-
This study examined the hypothesis that the criteria for defining motor-skills learning are applicable to visceral learning as well. It was expected that four descriptors of motor-skills learning would apply in the learning of bidirectional peripheral skin-temperature control, an instance of visceral (vasomotor) learning. These descriptors were (1) that knowledge of results (feedback) is vital to learning, (2) that the more information provided by the feedback the better is learning, (3) that performance improves with training, and (4) that response specificity develops with training. Skin temperature, EMG, and skin conductance in the hand being trained, skin temperature in the contralateral hand, and respiration rate were recorded. The changes in temperature of the hand being trained were evaluated and were compared with the other physiological responses to assess the possible development of response specificity. This study used hand holders that served to prevent artifact in temperature recording.;The learning of temperature control was observed over 20 training sessions for three groups of six human subjects. Groups 1, 2, and 3 received analogue feedback during all, half, or none of the trials, respectively. All groups were given strategies on how to accomplish temperature change.;The results relative to the four descriptors follow. First, biofeedback trials produced greater differential temperature control than trials without biofeedback. This was due primarily to the benefit of biofeedback over no biofeedback during the decrease-temperature trials. These findings agree with the first descriptor. Second, varying the probability of biofeedback had no significant effect on control; this does not agree with the second descriptor. Third, control did not improve over quarters of training but did improve over the five minutes of a trial; this agrees, only in part, with the third descriptor. Fourth, although control did not improve over training, response specificity developed over training (especially with respect to temperature changes in the contralateral hand during decrease trials) in the biofeedback but not in the no-biofeedback conditions. These findings agree with the fourth descriptor. The results appear to support only partially the motor-skills model for visceral learning.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
-
Program
-
Psychology
