This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 09:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Recalling Demonstrated and Guided Movements UsingImaginary and Verbal Rehearsal StrategiesCraig Hall a , Jennifer Moore a , John Annett b & Wendy Rodgers ca Faculty of Kinesiology , University of Western Ontariob Department of Kinesiology , University of Warwickc Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation , University of AlbertaPublished online: 22 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Craig Hall , Jennifer Moore , John Annett & Wendy Rodgers (1997) Recalling Demonstrated and GuidedMovements Using Imaginary and Verbal Rehearsal Strategies, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68:2, 136-144, DOI:10.1080/02701367.1997.10607989

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10607989

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport© 1997 bytheAmerican Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 68, No.2,pp.136-144

Recalling Demonstrated and Guided Movements Using Imaginaryand Verbal Rehearsal Strategies

Craig Hall, Jennifer Moore, JohnAnnett, andWendy Rodgers

This study investigated the recall ofmovement patterns presented either fly demonstration or guided movement with visioneliminated. Participants were instructed to rehearseand remembereach ofthe 12 patterns using one offour strategies: imagery,verbal labeling, imagery and verbal labeling, or no rehearsal strategy (i.e., control condition). Recall was betterfor patterns thatwere demonstrated than for those presented via guided movement. In addition, morepatterns wereremembered if a combinationofimagery and verbal labeling wereemployed as a rehearsal strategy compared to using imagery alone. These results arediscussed using Annett's (1994) model showing the relationships between action, language, and imagination in the acquisitionof motor skills.

Key words: imagery, retention, cognitive strategies

M ental imagery and verbal descriptions or labels aretwo frequently used rehearsal strategies for learn­

ing-remembering motor skills. Recent reviews of themental practice research (Driskell, Copper, & Moran,1994; Feltz, Landers, & Becker, 1988; Hall, Buckolz, &Fishburne, 1992; Salmon, Hall, & Haslam, 1994) empha­size just how important imagery is and how extensivelyathletes use it. Evidence even shows that individuals willuse imagery to help remember movements in the ab­sence ofany specific rehearsal instructions given to them(Hall & Buckolz, 1982-83). While the use of verbal me­diators (i.e., descriptions or labels) to help remembermovements has received considerably less investigation,Shea and his colleagues (Shea, 1977; Shea & Zimny,1983,1988), have reported improved performance onmotor memory tasks, when participants employ verballabeling strategies.

How mental imagery and verbal mediators facilitatethe learning ofmotor skills can be conceptualized usingAnnett's (1988, 1994, 1996) model depicting the relation-

Submitted: September 5, 1995Accepted: September 10, 1996

Craig HallandJenniferMoorearewith theFaculty ofKinesiologyat theUniversity of Western Ontario. JohnAnnettis with theDepartment of Kinesiology at theUniversity of Warwick. WendyRodgers is with theFaculty of Physical Education andRecreationat theUniversity ofAlberta.

136

ship between action and language. In the action-lan­guage-imagination (ALI) model (see Figure 1) there aretwo main routes bywhich a learner can acquire informa­tion about a skill. These correspond to demonstrationand verbal instruction and are based on two independentchannels or encoding systems: motor and verbal. Themotor channel is specialized for encoding human action,and the verbal channel encodes speech or linguistic ges­tures, including written language. Between the two chan­nels is a link, referred to as the action-language bridge.This bridge makes it possible to describe an action, gen­erate an action, and act on verbal instructions. Researchby Annett (1986, 1990) examining verbal explanationsof actions not normally performed with the aid of lan­guage has provided evidence that mental images are es­sential to translate action from motor to verbal codes.

If participants are presented (e.g., shown via dem­onstration) a movement to be remembered (learned),they must first form some in ternal representation of thatmovement within the motor channel. They will thenlikely employ some rehearsal strategy to help them re­member it. Mental imagery is the most common strat­egy used, because it involves the partial activation ofmotor representations. More precisely, Annett (1996)proposed that motor imagery entails activating actionprototypes decoupled from the parameters (e.g., locationand timing information) which would have to be inputto control actual movement. If the participants were spe­cifically instructed to employ verbal mediators as a re­hearsal strategy, they would, according to the model,generate an image ofthe movement to be remembered

RQES: June 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hall, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

Figure 1.The ALI model showing the relationships between action,language and imagination.

modeling and observational learning. The power ofdem­onstrations seems to depend on many variables, includ­ing the characteristics of the observer, the elements ofthe demonstration, the rehearsal strategies used by theobserver, and the nature ofthe skill to be learned (for adetailed discussion of these variables, see McCullagh,Weiss,&Ross, 1989). Recent research emphasizes the im­portance ofdemonstrations, indicating that participantswho view a model learning a skill and receive knowledgeof results (KR) about the model's movements performas well as participants who physically practice with KR(Adams, 1986; McCullagh & Caird, 1990).

Using manual guidance as an instructional tech­nique seems to be of some benefit in the early stages oflearning, but this may depend on the nature of the taskand the mode of response guidance (see Annett, 1969,pp. 152-159, and Holding, 1981, pp. 211-212). One ar­gument in favor of guided practice is that it reduces er­rors and thus, the likelihood that learners develop badhabits. A type of guided movement, termed passivemovement, has been examined in motor memory re­search. In passive movement experiments, visual cues areeliminated, making participants rely primarily on

VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS

and translate that image into a verbal code. When askedto recall the movement at a later time, the individual mayevoke an image of the movement, thus activating its in­ternal representation and subsequent recall.

Annett's model is consistent with Bandura's (1986)social learning theory. Although somewhat less specificregarding the mechanisms, Bandura's theory describeda similar sequence of events. Bandura postulated thatlearning and retention of observed behaviors are aidedby symbolic representations, which act as guides for sub­sequent action or reproduction of the modeled behav­ior. Similar to Annett, Bandura indicated that there aretwo primary forms of representation: imaginal and ver­bal. Bandura has been critical of observational learningresearch for being dependent on the physical modalityof information encoding and measuring the outcomeof observational learning as "mimicry" by the observer.He suggested that observational learning might be bet­ter characterized as "rule learning."

While both mental imagery and verbal labeling arecommon rehearsal strategies employed to remembermotor skills, surprisingly there is no research investigat­ing the combined effectiveness of the two. Both themodel proposed by Annett (1994) and Bandura's (1986)social learning theory suggest that the use of a verbalmediator should result in better movement retentionthan use of mental imagery alone, because a verbal me­diator may prompt, via imagery, the recall ofmovementsotherwise not remembered.

A central tenet of Bandura's (1986) social learningtheory relates to attention. He argued that attentionprocesses drive selective observation, and, thus, what is"learned" from a particular observation. The factorsBandura said influence attention and selective observa­tion pertain to factors within the person, the propertiesof the modeled activities, and the structural arrange­ments of social interactions among people. Given thesefactors and the selective role played by attention, it wouldseem reasonable to limit the information available fromany particular activity to determine from which modali­ties of that activity participants can glean the most (ormost memorable) information. Two important sourcesof information to consider in the instruction of motorskills are: vision (i.e., watching a demonstration) andproprioception (i.e., manual guidance).

The process of learning a motor skill commonly in­volves physical practice accompanied by instruction andfeedback from a teacher or coach. Individuals learninga skill normally receive instructions first and then peri­odically during practice. Instructions take various forms,including demonstrations (i.e., an instructor or modelshows the learner how to perform the actions), manualguidance (i.e., the coach manually guides the learnerthrough the correct movements), and verbal descrip­tions. Of these, the effectiveness of demonstrations hasreceived the most attention under the headings of

HUMAN ACTIONS

PERCEPTUAL k:=====:J!

PROCESSES

(L

v

MOTOR

PROCESSES

ACTIONS

PERCEPTUAL

PROCESSES

1\

v

MOTOR

PROCESSES

'7v

SPEECH

RaES: June 1997 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hall, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

proprioceptive feedback to remember the task. Lee andHirota (19S0) showed the effectiveness of passive move­ment compared to active practice. In their study, partici­pants whose vision was occluded actively moved thehandle of a linear positioning apparatus to a stop onsome trials, while on others the participants were pas­sively moved by the experimenter. Participants then re­called the movement extent by actively moving thehandle to where they thought the criterion movementended (the stop was removed) or by being passivelymoved by the experimenter. On the passive movementrecall trials, the participants told the experimenter whento stop moving their arms. When the recall test proce­dure matched the movement presentation, recall wasthe same for both active and passive movements.These results suggested that passive movement is aneffective way to instruct individuals acquiring move­ment information, at least when the movement is re­produced similarly to the way it was presented. Intypical learning (memory) situations, however, passivereproduction of the movements is not the learninggoal. Rather, participants actively produce the move­ments to be learned (remembered). What has not beenexamined is whether guided or passive movement is aseffective in a typical situation as other instructional tech­niques such as demonstrations.

Demonstrations and guided or passive movementsare often, but not necessarily, accompanied by verbaldescriptions. Both methods seem to be effective ways topresent movement information to learners, yet no directcomparison of the two has been made. One purpose ofthe present study was to compare whether movementrecall is better when presented by demonstrations or byguided movements. The second purpose of this study wasto compare the relative effectiveness of mental imagery,verbal mediators, and a combination of these rehearsalstrategies on the retention of movements.

2, were developed and employed in previous research(Coss, Hall, Buckolz, & Fishburne, 19S6) and have rela­tively high imagery values but lower verbal labeling val­ues. The pantograph consisted of two metalparallelograms joined in series at a central supportingpost such that movements made at one corner of the firstparallelogram (experimenter's side) were exactly repli­cated at the corresponding corner of the second paral­lelogram (participant's side). The pantograph wasmounted in the center ofa wooden platform. A 36- x 4S­in blind was suspended from the ceiling directly over thecenter of the pantograph, separating the participantfrom the experimenter. Attached to one corner of theexperimenter's parallelogram was the cursor of a Scien­tific Accessories Graf Bar digitizer (Science Accessories,Stratford, CT), mounted on one side of the wooden plat­form so that the pantograph could move within an areaof 45 x 60 ern. The sonic digitizer recorded a movementmade within this area and converted it to X and Y coor­dinates which were stored in a computer.

In four of the experimental conditions, the partici­pants were required to create a meaningful verbal de­scription (i.e., several words) or label (i.e., a single word)of each movement pattern as quickly as possible. Thetime between the experimenter's command (i.e., theword "label") to describe the pattern verbally and theparticipant's completed description was recorded by aLafayette Instrument clock-counter positioned beside thepantograph on the experimenter's side of the blind(Lafayette Instrument Co., Lafayette, IN).

Figure 2.The 12movement patterns in the stimulus list.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study (40 men, 40 women)were recruited from the general university population.They participated either on a volunteer basis or to sat­isfy a course requirement and had no previous experi­ence with the specific experimental tasks and apparatusused in this study.

Task andApparatus

The experimental task involved the presentation andreproduction of 12 movement patterns on a ISO-degreepantograph. The movement patterns, shown in Figure

P4~

r",START POINT 0

138 ROES: June 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Prior to the task each participant was required tocomplete two questionnaires. The Individual Differ­ences Questionnaire (IDQ; Paivio & Harshman, 1983)was used to identify imaginal and verbal thinking traits.It contains 86 items to which participants must respondtrue or false. A participant's score is calculated by sum­ming the answers supporting high-ability assertions. Thehigher the IDQ scores, the better the individual's abil­ity. The Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ; Hall& Pongrac, 1983) was administered to assess visual andkinesthetic movement imagery ability. This question­naire consists ofnine simple movements participants areasked to perform and then imagine both visually andkinesthetically. It involves arm, leg, and whole bodymovements, and participants give their imagery ratingson a 7-point scale, which ranges from 1 == "very easy toimagine" to 7 == "very difficult to imagine." The scoreson each scale are summed separately, and a low MIQscore indicates a high ability. The IDQ and MIQ wereadministered to check that individual differences as as­sessed by these questionnaires did not influence recallperformance in this experiment.

Procedure

Each participant took part in two sessions. Duringthe first session, the two questionnaires were adminis­tered. After this session, participants were randomly as­signed to one of eight experimental conditions, with thelimitation that males and females were evenly distributedacross conditions. Once the eight conditions were estab­lished, the membership was examined, in light of thequestionnaire results, to ascertain that individuals obtain­ing high and low scores were equally distributed acrossconditions. This examination indicated that such distri­butions existed and no changes were necessary.

The second session involved the presentation ofa setof movement patterns and a free recall test. All presen­tations of the movement patterns were passive and givenin a random order,' Half of the participants were blind­folded and passively manipulated through the patternsby the experimenter. That is, they grasped the panto­graph while the experimenter moved them through themovements (instruction using guided movement). Theother half of the participants watched as a model (i.e.,experimental assistant) was passively manipulatedthrough the patterns (instruction by the use of demon­strations). In all cases, the experimenter and the actualpattern templates were hidden from participants' viewon the other side of the blind. The eight experimentalconditions were as follows:

1.Demonstration-Control (DC):Participants sat in frontof the pantograph and watched as the model, who stoodbehind them and slightly to one side, was manipulatedthrough each of the 12 movement patterns. The partici­pants were able to see the handle of the pantograph and

ROES: June 1997

Hall, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

the model's hand and arm. The model grasped the pan­tograph handle with the same hand as the participant'sdominant hand. There was a 15-s rest interval betweenpattern presentations to match the time between patternpresentations in other conditions. Participants weregiven no instructions about what to think during thistime; they were just asked to sit quietly.

2. Guided Movement-Control (CMC): Participants wereblindfolded and seated in front of the pantograph (i.e.,in the same position as the participants in the DC con­dition). They grasped the pantograph handle with theirdominant hand and were passively manipulated througheach of the 12 movement patterns by the experimenter.There was a 15-s rest interval between pattern presenta­tions similar to the interval in the DC condition.

3. Demonstration-Imagery (D/): Participants satin frontof the pantograph and watched as the experimentermoved the model through the 12 movement patterns,as in the DC condition. Following the presentation ofeach movement pattern, participants were asked to closetheir eyes and visually imagine the pattern as clearly andaccurately as possible. The participants did this on theexperimenter's command, "image," and said, "done,"when they had completed imagining the pattern. Thisprocedure was repeated so that participants imaginedeach pattern twice in order to have the same amount ofrehearsal (i.e., rehearsing the pattern two times) as par­ticipants in the imagery and label conditions (seebelow). The time between movement pattern presenta­tions was 15 s, which included the time to complete thetwo imagined rehearsals of the pattern.

4. Guided Movement-Imagery (CMf): The procedurefor presenting each movement pattern was the samehere as in the GMC condition. Following the presenta­tion of each pattern participants were asked to kines­thetically imagine (i.e., imagine how the pattern feels)as distinctly and accurately as possible. As in the DI con­dition, participants began to imagine the pattern on thecommand from the experimenter and said "done" whenthey had completed their imagery. The participantsimagined each pattern twice during the 15-s intervalbetween movement pattern presentations.

5. Demonstration-Label (DL): Each pattern was pre­sented using the procedures in the DC condition. Fol­lowing each pattern presentation, participants wereasked to give a meaningful verbal label or brief descrip­tion to the pattern as quickly as possible. The experi­menter recorded the time needed to generate and givethe label or description. After recording this informa­tion, the experimenter asked the participant to repeatthe label or description. Participants were asked not tochange their label or verbal description during this sec­ond repetition. As in the imagery conditions, partici­pants repeated their verbal label or description, so theywere rehearsing the pattern to the same extent as par­ticipants in the imagery and label conditions. Again,

139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hall, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

there was a 15-s interval between pattern presentations,with the labeling procedures being completed duringthis interval.

6. Guided Movement-Label (GML): The 12 movementswere presented using the same procedures as in theGMC condition. As in the DL condition, after the pre­sentation of each pattern participants were asked todescribe or label them, and the descriptions or labelsand times to generate them were recorded. Participantswere also asked to repeat each description or label dur­ing the 15-s interval between pattern presentations.

7. Demonstration-Imagery and Label (DIL): The proce­dure was identical to the DI condition, with the excep­tion of a labeling requirement replacing the secondimagery rehearsal. After participants completed visuallyimagining a pattern, they were required to give it ameaningful label or description as quickly as possible.The experimenter recorded both the label or descrip­tion and the time needed to generate it.

8. Guided Movement-Imagery and Label (GMIL): Theprocedure was the same as that in the GMI conditionexcept that the second imaginal rehearsal was replacedwith the requirement to give the pattern a label or de­scription. The experimenter recorded the label or de­scription and the time to generate it.

Following presentation of the 12 movement pat­terns, participants were taken into an adjoining roomand given 10 min to work on a word puzzle. The puzzlewas difficult, and participants were encouraged to com­plete as much of it as possible. None completed theentire puzzle during the allotted time. Participants werethen brought back into the laboratory, seated at thepantograph, and asked to recall, in any order (free re­call), as many of the 12 movement patterns as they couldremember. The participants had complete control of thepantograph (i.e., all movements were actively generatedby the participants) and were not blindfolded. There­fore, they could make use of both visual and kinestheticinformation. The participants were told to take as muchtime as they needed and to do the best they could.

After participants had produced as many patternsas they could remember, they completed a questionnairewhich assessed the nature of the symbolic codes (i.e., im­ages or verbal representations of movement patterns)they had used during the experiment. In assessing move­ments acquired through observational learning,Bandura (1986) proposed that regardless of when re­call is assessed, individuals who retain the symboliccodes should be able to reproduce the criterion ac­tions. Participants in this study were specifically askedabout their use of different imagery types (e.g., visualand kinesthetic) and verbal labels, for example, "Whichpatterns, if any, did you name, describe, or label, andwhat were the labels?" Following completion of the ques­tionnaire, participants were debriefed about the purposeof the study and asked for their comments.

140

ScoringSystem

When movements are produced, they have basicphysical characteristics, which include shape (or form),size, start-point, end-point, and the speed with whichthey are made. Of these, shape (or form) is probably thesingle most distinguishing characteristic. When in­structing participants and correcting their move­ments, a motor skills instructor tends first to look atthe form with which the movements are made andthen works on having the participants make the move­ments correctly. Accordingly, shape was the most im­portant characteristic in the movement recall patternsused in this study. For' it to be considered correct, a re­called pattern had to resemble closely one of the origi­nal12 patterns, but it did not have to be the same size.This is analogous to presenting the word "CAT"and thengiving participants credit for correct recall when theywrite "CAT."

Movement form in many sports (e.g., diving, gym­nastics, figure skating) is evaluated usingjudges' ratings.The judges compare a given performance against a setstandard (i.e., an ideal or perfect performance) and ratethe performance accordingly. The present study em­ployed the same approach, whereby each recalled move­ment pattern was rated by a panel of three judges. Thisjudging system was initially tested in a pilot study to de­termine its feasibility. The judges sat in front of a com­puter screen on which a recalled pattern was displayed.They had no knowledge about which participant hadreproduced the pattern. The judges first consideredpattern shape. If all three judges independently de­cided that the shape of the recalled pattern resembledone of the 12 patterns from the stimulus list, the pat­tern was then rated on a scale from 1-5. If the judgesdid not achieve complete agreement for a given pattern,the participant did not receive any credit for recallingthat pattern (i.e., the pattern received a 0 rating) andno further analysis of that pattern was undertaken. Theratings for shape were:

1 The reproduction was recognizable as one of the 12stimulus patterns but was proportionally and char­acteristically inaccurate."

2 The reproduction was recognizable as one of the 12stimulus patterns but with some proportional andcharacteristic inaccuracies.

3 The reproduction was similar to one of the 12 stimu­lus patterns with slight proportional and character­istic inaccuracies.

4 The reproduction was very similar to one of the 12stimulus patterns, but with either a slight propor­tional or characteristic inaccuracy.

5 The reproduction was very similar to one of the 12stimulus patterns, with less than a 10% discrepancyin any component.

ROES: June 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

This rating scale and the 12 stimulus patterns weredisplayed on a board mounted directly above the com­puter screen on which the recalled patterns were shown.

If a recalled pattern was given a rating for shape,then it was also evaluated by the judges on two othercharacteristics: size and starting point. The followingscale was used to award ratings of pattern size:

o The pattern reproduction differed from the origi­nal size by more than 90%.

1 The pattern reproduction differed from the origi­nal size by 71-90%.

2 The pattern reproduction differed from the origi­nal size by 51-70%.

3 The pattern reproduction differed from the origi­nal size by 31-50%.

4 The pattern reproduction differed from the origi­nal size by 11-30%.

5 The pattern reproduction was within 10% of theoriginal size.

This rating scale was also displayed on a boardreadily visible to the panel of judges. There were onlytwo possible starting points for each movement pattern,and these were designated by two dots on the platformsurface within the active area of the digitizer. Therefore,when participants were asked to recall the patterns, theyonly had to choose which dot was the correct point fromwhich to begin reproducing a given pattern. With re­spect to awarding a score for starting point, it was sim­ply a matter of giving a 1 if a pattern was initiated fromthe correct point and a 0 if it was not.

This rating system produced three scores for eachrecalled movement pattern: shape, size, and startingpoint. A composite score was then calculated, becauseit permitted the experimenters to examine the qualityof the movement patterns recalled in regard to thequantity recalled. Calculating the composite score foreach participant was based on the mean of the judgedscores from each rating scale and the total recall scorefor the participant. Specifically, each participant'smean shape score (for those patterns having a valuegreater than 0), size score, and starting point scorewere added and multiplied by the percentage of the12 patterns recalled.

Before the actual judging of patterns began, thejudges were given the opportunity to rate and discussfive pattern reproductions from data collected in a pi­lot study. This was done to help the judges settle on acommon set of scoring ranges, because the judges hadno knowledge about the purpose of the experiment.The overall inter-judge reliability using this methodof scoring in the pilot study was found to be acceptable(r= .80). The scores from the three judges were aver­aged to obtain the shape, size and starting point scoresfor that pattern.

ROES: June 1997

Hall. Moore, Annett, andRodgers

Results

The composite score was significantly related to itscomponent parts. Furthermore, the results for thesescores, with the exception of starting point, essentiallyparalleled those found for the composite score (for ex­ample, see the percentage of recall scores given in Table1). Therefore, only results pertaining to the compositescore are discussed in detail. These data were analyzedin a 2 X 4 (Instruction Type x Rehearsal Strategy) analy­sis ofvariance. All analyses were tested at the p< .05 levelof significance. The main effect for Instruction Type wassignificant, F(1,72) = 10.13, p< .001, 0)2 = .08, with recallfor movements presented by demonstrations (M =328.60, SD = 130.59) being better than for those pre­sented by guided movements (M= 238.26, SD= 117.32).There also proved to be a significant main effect for Re­hearsal Strategy, F(3,72) = 9.01, P< .001, 0)2 = .21. Fur­ther analysis using the Tukey test revealed that theLabeling group (M = 334.34, SD = 166.21) and the Im­agery and Labeling group (M= 376.96, SD= 112.68) per­formed significantly better than the Control group (M=214.12, SD= 117.93) and the Imagery group (M= 208.32,SD = 98.58). The Instruction Type x Rehearsal Strategyinteraction failed to be significant. Composite score re­sults for the eight experimental conditions are illustratedin Figure 3.

As indicated previously, after participants were ran­domly assigned to one of the eight experimental condi­tions, membership was examined with respect to MIQand IDQscores to make sure participants obtaining highscores and low scores were equally distributed acrossconditions. This was accomplished by conducting a 1 x8 (experimen tal condition) analysis of variance(ANOVA) for each score (IDQand MIQ). No significanteffects were found. In addition, to determine if ease inlabeling patterns may have influenced the results, a Ix 4(experimental condition) ANOVAwas conducted on themean labeling latencies for the conditions in which par­ticipants were required to give a label; it failed to reachsignificance.

The results of the questionnaire administered afterthe recall test confirmed that all participants were ableto understand clearly and carry out the various imageryand labeling instructions. The results from this question­naire also indicated that 98% of the participants engagedin at least some form of visual imagery regardless ofwhether they received specific instructions to do so. Thesame did not hold true for kinesthetic imagery. Withoutspecific instructions to kinesthetically image, only 50%of participants did so; and if the instruction type wasdemonstration, the number dropped to 40%. Withoutspecific labeling instructions, the participants who weregiven the patterns via demonstrations reported labeling25% of the patterns, while the participants who learnedthe patterns via passive movement reported using this

141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Half, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

Table 1. Percentage of recallfor the eightexperimental conditions

Discussion

rehearsal technique for only 15% of the patterns. Abreakdown by experimental condition on the self-re­ported use of visual imagery, kinesthetic imagery, andlabeling rehearsal strategies is presented in Table 2.

A common rehearsal strategy for rememberingmovements is mental imagery. Hall and Buckolz (1982­83) found that participants will spontaneously use im­agery to help remember sets ofmovements if they don'treceive any specific rehearsal instructions. This findingwas replicated in the present study. Participants reportedusing imagery, especially visual imagery, to help themrehearse the movements, whether they were told to ornot. Verbal labeling is also an effective rehearsal strat­egyfor remembering movements (Shea & Zimny, 1988),but when the movements can not easily be labeled, suchas in this experiment, this strategy is not extensively used.Unless specifically asked to give verbal descriptions, par­ticipants only reported doing so about 20% of the time.All participants who were instructed to use verbal label­ing as a rehearsal strategy also reported using mentalimagery and did so to about the same extent as partici­pants in the imagery rehearsal conditions. Annett's(1994) model predicts that these participants wouldemploy imagery, because they must generate images to

translate action into language. That they would use im­agery to the same extent as participants specifically askedto engage in imagery rehearsal is somewhat surprisingand may be indicative ofjust how powerful a tool peoplebelieve imagery to be.

Participants' reported use ofimagery and verbal la­beling strategies indicates that only two rehearsal con­ditions were actually present, and not the four asoutlined in the experimental design. The participantsin the control and imagery conditions all employedan imagery rehearsal strategy. The participants in theverbal label and imagery and verbal label conditionsall imagined the movements and then gave them la­bels or descriptions. Furthermore, the recall perfor­mance data directly correspond with the reported useof imagery and labeling. Those participants who imag­ined and verbally labeled the movements had betterrecall than those who only imagined the movements.These results suggest that combining imagery and ver­ballabeling rehearsal strategies is very effective for re­membering sets of movements, which is consistent withAnnett's (1994) model.

In the ALI model (Annett, 1994, 1996), the onechannel is specialized for the perception and produc­tion (or encoding) of actions, and the other channel isspecialized for the perception and production of lan­guage. The action channel serves imitation by encod­ing movement patterns and then generating them fromencoded representations, while the language channelencodes and can generate or reproduce verbal descrip­tions. The action language bridge enables communica­tion between the two channels. Therefore, recalling averbal description of a movement otherwise forgottenevokes an image of that movement and, in turn, facili-Instruction type

Demonstration Guided movementRehearsal strategy

Table 2.Self-reported useofvisual imagery, kinesthetic imagery,and labeling strategies*

ControlImageryLabelImagery and label

Condition

DCMC01GMIDLGMLOILGMIL

Visualimagery

10010010090

10010010090

28324453

Kinestheticimagery

406020

100309050

100

23243741

Labeling

20103010

100100100100

500

450

4CXl

350 • Control• ~~~ryw •rr: • Imagaryand I..8b8I0 :lOOIIIws 250

~:; zn0u

150

100

50

aGuidod Demonstration

MovementINSTRUCTION TYPE

*Numbers arepercentages.Figure 3.The mean composite scores for the experimentalconditions.

142 ROES: June 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

tates the recall of that movement. When rememberinga set of movements, as in the present experiment, hav­ing verbal descriptions for each movement is expectedto increase the number of movements recalled (quan­tity). What the model does not specifically address iswhether the quality of movement recall is improved.This, however, proved to be the case. The compositescore calculated in this study considers the quality ofthe movements recalled in light of the quantity re­called, and participants using verbal labels had highercomposite scores.

It is not really clear why having a verbal descriptionfor a movement would improve the quality of recall forthat movement. One possibility is that the descriptionmay relate to (e.g., describe) the movement shape andaids in the actual production of the movement. Anotherpossibility for the enhanced quality of movement recallthrough the use ofverbal descriptions might be that theinformation encoded verbally is not completely isomor­phic with the encoded image, resulting in more total andvaried information regarding the criterion movementwhen verbal descriptions are used. Both Annett (1994)and Bandura (1986) have indicated that the symbolicrepresentations for visual (movement in Annett's case)and verbal information are distinct. It has not been es­tablished, however, what overlap might exist between thetwo forms of representation (in terms of the informa­tion encoded) from something like a visual demonstra­tion of a motor task.

Two common methods of motor skills instructionare: (1) the use ofdemonstrations, and (2) guided move­ments. While instructors and coaches employ both meth­ods, there has been no empirical research indicatingwhich of the two is more effective. The present resultsindicate that people remember movements that aredemonstrated to them better than if they are passivelyguided through the movements. Participants recalledsignificantly more movement patterns in the demonstra­tion condition than in the guided movement condition,regardless of the rehearsal strategy they were asked touse. Because the participants in this study were pre­sented with the movement patterns for the first time,these results only apply to initial presentation. Theseresults, however, suggest that guided movement tech­niques are not only effective when the performer alsohas the opportunity to actively reproduce the move­ments. The participants in the guided movement con­ditions recalled, on the average, slightly more than 30%of the movement patterns. How effective the use ofguided movements might be following some practice stillneeds to be investigated.

Why would a demonstration be superior to a guidedmovement as an initial form of instruction? It might sim­ply be that in a demonstration there is more informa­tion available to be encoded. It might also, however,relate to Bandura's (1986) concept of attention. In the

ROES: June 1997

Hall, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

present study, it is unlikely that any participants hadpreviously learned movements only through guidedmovement techniques. It is possible, therefore, that inaddition to having less information available to them,the participants were very inefficient and ineffective atattending to the relevant information. They may nothave attended to the most pertinent information forhelping them develop the guiding heuristics for repro­ducing the movement. In accord with both of these ex­planations, demonstrations would generate better (i.e.,more accurate or detailed) motor images than guidedmovements, and in most models ofmotor imagery, suchas Annett's (1994) ALI model, image content influencesmovement production.

References

Adams,]. A. (1986), Use of the model's knowledge of resultsto increase the observer's performance.Journal ofHumanMovement Studies, 12, 89-98.

Annett.]. (1969). Feedback and human behavior. Middlesex, UK:Penguin.

Annett.]. (1986). On knowing how to do things. In H. Heuer& C. Fromm (Eds.), Generation and modulation ofaction pat­terns (pp. 187-200). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Annett,]. (1988). Imagery and skill acquisition. In M. Denis,]. Engelkamp, &]. T. E. Richardson (Eds.). Cognitive andneuropsychological approaches to mental imagery (pp. 259­268). London: Martinius Nijhoff Publishers.

Annett,]. (1990). Relations between verbal and gestural ex­planations. In G. R. Hammong (Ed.), Cerebral control ofspeech and limb movements (pp, 295-314). Amsterdam:North Holland.

Annett.]. (1994). The learning of motor skills: Sports scienceand ergonomics perspectives. Ergonomics, 37, 5-15.

Annett,]. (1996). On knowing how to do things. CognitiveBrain Research, 3, 65-69.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Driskell,]. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mentalpractice enhance performance?Journal ofApplied Psychol­ogy, 79,481-492.

Feltz, D. L., Lander's, D. M., & Becker, B.J. (1988). A revisedmeta-analysis of the mental practice literature on motor skilllearning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Pub­lication on Demand Program.

Goss, S., Hall, C., Buckolz, E., & Fishburne, G. (1986). Imag­ery ability and the acquisition and retention of move­ments. Memory and Cognition, 14,469-477.

Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1982-83). Imagery and the recall ofmovement patterns. Imagination, Cognition and Personal­ity, 2,251-260.

Hall. C., Buckolz, E., & Fishburne, G.]. (1992). Imagery andthe acquisition of motor skills. Canadian Journal of SportSciences, 7,19-27.

Hall, C. R., & Pongrac,]. (1983). Movement imagery question­naire. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hal/, Moore, Annett, andRodgers

Holding, D. H. (1981). Human skills. New York:John Wiley &Sons.

Lee, T. D., & Hirota, T. T. (1980). Encoding specificity prin­ciple in motor short-term memory for movement extent.Journal ofMotor Behavior, 12,63-67.

McCullagh, P., & Caird,]. K. (1990). Correct and learningmodels and the use of model knowledge of results in theacquisition and retention of a motor skill. Journal ofHu­man Movement Studies, 17, 114-121.

McCullagh, P., Weiss, M. R., & Ross, D. (1989). Modeling con­siderations in motor skill acquisition and performance:An integrated approach. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exerciseand sport sciences reviews (pp. 475-513). Baltimore: WiIl­iams & Wilkins.

Paivio, A., & Harshman, R. (1983). Factor analysis of a ques­tionnaire on imagery and verbal habits and skills. Cana­dianJournalofPsychology, 37, 461-483.

Salmon.j., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery bysoccer players. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 6, 116-133.

Shea,]. B. (1977). Effects of labeling on motor short-termmemory. Journal ofExperimental Psychology:Human Learn­ing and Memory, 3, 92-99.

Shea,]. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context effects in memoryand learning movement information. In R. A. Magill(Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 345-366).Amsterdam: North Holland.

Shea,]. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1988). Knowledge incorporationin motor representation. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.),Complex movement behavior: The motor-action controversy(pp.289-314). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

144

Notes

1. No physical movement condition (e.g., the physicalpractice of a movement pattern after it was presented)was included in this study, because it would have changedthe presentation of the patterns from completely passiveto completely active, or a combination of passive andactive. It is well known that physical practice is generallysuperior to imaginal or no practice, and it was felt thatactive physical performance of the movements mightwash out any learning that could be attributed exclusivelyto the passive presentation of the movements being ex­amined (demonstrations vs. guided movements).2. An example ofa proportionally inaccurate reproduc­tion is the lower part of Pattern # 4 being twice as longas the upper part. If Pattern # 6 were rounded insteadof Vshaped, it would be a characteristically inaccuratereproduction.

Authors' Note

Please send all correspondence concerning this articleto Craig Hall, Faculty of Kinesiology, University ofWest­ern Ontario, London-Canada N6A 3K7

E-mail chall@uwovax.uwo.ca

ROES: June 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

09:

31 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014