How Does Our Child Learn? Motor development and learning

1. How Does Our Child Learn?Motor development and learning K. Verdolini Abbott, Ph.D., CCC-SLP September 2010

2. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_368/1235386180wapjdA.jpg

4. Important distinction • Motor development • Fair amount of research in children • Motor learning • Very little research in children

5. Motor control & development • Dynamical systems: Predominating framework • Key points • Subject, environment and task interact to produce behavior • Cognition relatively ignored

6. Example: Non-linear dynamics • Example • Newborn stepping reflex • Reflex “disappears” within a few months • Traditional explanation is that cortical maturation inhibits reflexive movement • However pattern is seen when child is on the back, with limbs in different relationship to gravity • Stepping reflex disappears because legs gain weight rapidly; can’t lift in upright posture • Implication is that development is not necessarily (all) about brain control, but is rather about interactions of tissue and environmental factors

7. Relevance for AIVThe “what” of voice training • “Raspberries;” /m/, etc. • “Semi-occluded vocal tract” • Helps to abduct vocal folds (good: counteract hyperfunction) • Helps to oscillate vocal folds (good: intensity) • Titze, 2010 • AIV (check) • All over it • Basic AIV exercise, etc.

8. Motor learningBehaviorism v. Cognitive Science • Skinner v. • Tolman

9. BehaviorismSkinner • Operant (instrumental) conditioning • Learner is passive (tabula rasa) • Environment causes behavior • S – R – rf • Origin of 1st correct “R” is ignored • Black box (“Mind is an improper target of study in psychology”) • Incremental learning curves • (Ignore specific labels on graph)

10. Cognitive scienceTolman • Insight learning • Learner is active • Mind is relevant • E.g. development of cognitive “maps” for a territory • Insight learning curves

11. SLP tradition in pediatrics • Artic/phonol/voice/stt • Skinnerian • Provide stimulus • Record response • Apply rf based on a priori schedule • Proceed systematically

12. (Artic/phonol/voice/stt) • Typical concepts • “The child will…..” • Do “x” • On “y” number of trials in “z” consecutive sets • Given “α” stimulus • And “β” reinforcement • The idea is we can predict people’s behavior with reasonable accuracy knowing S-R-rf

13. SLP tradition in pediatrics • Language • More cognitive approach • Many different permutations • E.g. Johnston FAAcTual approach to language therapy • The child is the one who learns; child may cause you to alter your pre-planned course http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/surprised.jpg

14. Point • Instrumental conditioning model has long been demodé’ in most basic science circles • Atheoretical • Assumes we can actually control people’s behavior • Better suited to training than to learning • Problems with extinction http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/09/9-22-08-ge-television.jpg

15. AIV • Retains some Skinner • Uses extrinsic rewards to reinforce work during a session and at home (problem of extinction becomes moot once behaviors are attained and said work is no longer required) • Does not use extrinsic rewards to reinforce child’s actual voice production. (Those rewards need to be instrinsic.) • Largely cognitive science • Child is active learner • Therefore we need to encourage active participation • Other principles seen shortly

16. Before we start with review of cognitive processes in motor learning • Typical shape of voice training programs for children and adults (independent of Skinnerian v. cognitive bias) • Simple to complex stimuli • (Reinforcement) • Work on component parts of v. production • Use explicit, verbal instructions about the biomechanics of voice • Get ready to get blown out of the water

17. What are cognitive processes in motor learning for children? • Usual story • Most of the data reported for adults • No reason to think findings should be vastly different for children, with some exceptions • We proceed (gingerly) based on that assumption http://portal.ohsu.edu/blogs/researchnews/files/2010/03/nih-logo-300x300.png

18. Declarative v. procedural learning Definitions Declarative learning:  Memory for specific events and general facts about the world; seen by verbal reports (“introspection”) Procedural learning:  Memory for processes or procedures; seen by performance changes following practice or exposure (not verbal reports or insight) E.g. Squire, 1986 A general model of motor learning

19. Model of motor learning • Evidence of distinction: • Declarative learning impaired in amnesia (damage to hippocampus and amygdala) • Procedural learning spared in amnesia (does not depend on hippocampus and amygdala) • E.g. Milner, 1962

20. Further implication: Motor learning can and does occur without conscious memory of prior training—i.e. without conscious support of what has been learned What are further cognitive characteristics of the system that learns motor things? Note: Notions of an entirely “clean distinction” between declarative and procedural learning has been challenged; for simplification we will set those aside today and consider characteristics of the “procedural” system which is certainly involved in motor learning. Model of motor learning

21. Declarative learning Conscious Associational Intentional Flexible Slow serial processing Phylogenetically and ontogenetically new Vanishing, unstable Attention-dependent Repetition-dependent Procedural learning Non-conscious Sensory/perceptual Incidental Stereotypic Fast parallel proc-g Phylogenetically and ontogenetically old Stable over time Attention-dependent Repetition-dependent (massive, for habit formation) Note: Data largely from verbal “priming” studies Review by Verdolini (1997) Model of motor learning

22. Attention • Attention: • Attention to mechanics: Harms both performance and learning (e.g. ski simulator; Wulf & Weigelt, 1997; image Wulf et al., 1997; image from Lee, 2002)

23. Does attention to mechanics harm learning because they direct attention to an internal (versus external) locus? Data on internal versus external locus of attention: Attention to swing of arm (internal focus), as opposed to swing of club (external focus) decreased performance and learning (accuracy in golf task; Wulf, Lauterbach, & Toole, 1999) Attention, cont’d

24. Is the benefit of an external locus of attention really due to the external locus, or because an external locus is often focused on movements’ effects? Data on movements’ effects: Is external locus of attention better because you’re not paying attention to the mechanics, or because you are paying attention to movements’ effects? Addressed in tennis study: attention to events antecedent to swing (approaching ball) produced poorer performance and learning than attention to movements’ effects (arc of ball as it left raquet; Wulf, McNevin, Fuchs, Ritter, & Toole, 2000) Attention

25. Current conclusions: Attention to gestures’ effects may be vastly better for both performance and motor learning, as compared to attention to mechanics. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bNy01y2CZik/SLSLXUfxcoI/AAAAAAAAAIE/DRNM_9CcpSE/s400/apples-attention.jpg AIV (check) General: Keep child’s attention engaged in learning activities (with fun activities; child interaction and creativity required) Specific: Direct child’s attention to sound and feel of voice, not biomechanics Attention

26. Metaphoric imagery widely used in voice training Is basically associational (“elaborative”) processing ASHA Division 3 query (2003): 37/500 (ca.) responders; 35/37 use imagery sometimes, often, or extensively (95%) Colton & Casper (1996) VASTA Newsletter (2003) Journal of Singing (2003) Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing

27. Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing • Question • Is metaphoric imagery helpful in physical training in general, and in voice training in particular? • Verdolini-Marston & Balota, 1994; Verdolini et al., in preparation

28. Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing

29. cc/sec Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing • Feedback people got in the airflow study

30. Groups Metaphoric imagery (associational processing) No instruction (perceptual processing) Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing

31. Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing • Results

32. Discussion Results similar to those for large hand-eye coordination study (Verdolini-Marston & Balota) Subjects thought metaphors were helpful for learning; they were wrong Conclusion was perceptual (not associational) processes regulate motor learning Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing

33. Metaphoric images vs perceptual processing • Current conclusions: • At present there is no empirical evidence that metaphoric images help learning in general physical or voice training • There is evidence that such images harm learning. • AIV (check) • General: Perception, perception, perception (self and others) • Specific: Forget metaphors! • http://www.wise4living.com/hfhear/images/hearing-device.jpg

34. Having said as much • Hold your horses just a sec • Metaphoric imagery = • Associational processing = • Elaborative processing = • GOOD FOR REMEMBERING TO DO THINGS (but not how to do them) • AIV: We’re going to tell stories that will help kids to remember to do things. But we’ll use motor learning principles to help them learn how to dothem.

35. Two types: “Trying” versus “go for it” Generally thought in training that “trying” is bad, but “go for it” is good Intention

36. Theory: “Trying” supports declarative learning (e.g. verbal priming, Schacter & Graf, 1986) and harms procedural performance (e.g. video game playing; Baumeister, 1984). “Go for it” is instead critical to goal accomplishment (e.g. lip closure, Cole & Abbs, 1983). Intention

37. Interesting findings: Golf (Crews, 2001): Looked at pressure experimentally induced Interested in studying “the yips” (choking under pressure) Induced pressure experimentally Intention

38. Both “chokers” and “non-chokers” had same increase in anxiety with pressure (e.g. heart rate doubled) However, brain activation patterns were different across “chokers” and “non-chokers”…. Intention

39. Left = non-chokers; right = chokers (top = BL, down = increasing pressure; EEG data)

40. Chokers: left brain doing most of work Non-chokers: same amount of increase in brain activity, but spread evenly across both sides of brain Intention

41. Cognitively, the implication is that the more the right side of the brain stays involved (“creative” and processes target awareness), the better you perform under stress. Intention

42. Current conclusions: perceptual imagery (not metaphoric imagery), i.e. target awareness, assists performance(and I’d guess learning). http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/SOM/Explore-Catalog.jpg AIV (check) General: Child doesn’t “try;” child “explores” Specific: Perception, perception, perception Intention

43. Study looking at effect of verbal (declarative) versus experiential (implicit) training approaches for learning to identify “balanced” and “closed” musical phrases Musically naïve subjects M & F, age 13-14 Baseline musical aptitude same in all (Gordon’s AMMA) Altenmueller et al., 1997 Consciousness

44. Three groups Declarative training (verbal training) Procedural training (experiential training) Control group (no training) EEG measures Baseline After 5 wk training One yr following training Consciousness

45. Behavioral results: Immediately after 5 wk of training, both “learning groups” had improved in performance, equivalently; control group did not. One year after training, the “procedural” group performed better than the “declarative” group. Consciousness

46. Consciousness • Brain results: A = declarative learning (pronounced increase over left frontal region; moderate increase over whole left hemisphere after learning) B = procedural learning (pronounced increase over right frontal regions and posterior parietal regions of both hemispheres after learning) C = control group (no change from baseline, or attenuation due to habituation to procedures)

47. Current conclusions: Verbal approach to training increases verbal-related activity in brain; leads to poor long-term learning Procedural approach to training increases right hemisphere activity, and bilateral sensory-related activity; leads to better long-term learning http://jameswoodward.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/near-death-experience-1.jpg AIV (check) General: Limit verbal, analytical instructions Specific: “Embodiment” of technique; practice! Consciousness

48. w www.sapdesignguild.org/community/images/power_law.gif Average data log-linear (power) function E.g., Snoddy (1926), mirror tracing E.g., Crossman (1959), cigar rolling (7 years, 10 million cigars) Individual data exponential (e.g. Stratton et al., 2007) Specific functions proposed to depend on interaction across task, subject and practice (Newell, 2001) Law of practice

49. Structuring practice • Models? • Instructions • Specific moderately-difficult goals > “do your best” (Keflos & Landers, 1995) • Self-goal setting may be good for learning (Boyce, 1992) • AIV (check) • Specific goals set for the child to proceed from one level of program to the next http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_j8WG63Ct8yg/SZpI_NtcRvI/AAAAAAAAEQw/DyrVxBsEMJ8/s1600-h/motivation

50. Perceptual pre-training E.g. walking a course before running it; going onto stage before singing on it May enhance learning (Adams & Creamer, 1962, tracking task) AIV (check) Child consistently exposed to a task before being asked to perform it Structuring practice http://picturesofpeoplerunning.com/images/picturesofpeople_running_ocean.jpg