動作學習研究的新視窗：人因變項

New Window for Motor Learning Research: Variables in Human Factors

卓俊伶(Hank Jun-Ling Jwo) ； 楊梓楣(Chih-Mei Yang)

《大專體育學刊》 19卷1期 (2017/03) Pp. i-vii

https://doi.org/10.5297/ser.1901.editorial

摘要

壹、前言動作學習 (motor learning) 的研究旨在探討動作技能如何受經驗與練習而產生暫時或長期的影響，前者是表現變項 (performance variable) 後者則是學習變項 (learning variable) 的效應。動作學習研究的典範 (paradigm) (Kuhn, 1996) 傳統上受限於認知心理學對學習的定義，認定學習是個體透過其與環境互動之後的經驗，促使行為產生相當持久性的變化，因此在實驗設計上特別強調行為經驗的操弄，例如練習安排與回饋實施，迄今已有相當程度之發現，貢獻教學、訓練與復健方面的實務應用，其中則指出練習多樣化與回饋限量提供有益動作學習。然而，採取行為經驗操弄的動作學習研究手段，可以帶來客觀之實驗結果，但是卻也可能忽略有機體當作研究對象時的個人因素。之所以有如此思慮，應該從研究方法切入思辯，硬科學 (hard science) 的嚴謹設計，大多係以無機物為標的，其基本假定 (assumption)是在相同劑量 (dose) 的操弄處理，在一切條件均等的前提下，便可引起相等量的反應，這樣的假定應用在以有機體─人為對象的行為科學可能未必有相同效果。從行為相關的研究結果經常出現較高的變異性來看，這似乎與硬科學間有著間隙 (Hedges, 1987)，這間隙乃是來自人本身的特定條件與獨特本質的歧異性，另言之就是個別差異 (individualdifferences)，以一個整合的名詞來歸類，可以稱之為「人因」(human factors)。由於影響行為的人因變項具有其變異性，實在不應該被忽視或只是以假定的方式，姑且將之視為恆常，準此，將人因變項分為心理與知覺兩方面，論述其對動作學習的影響，分述如下。大專體育學刊第19卷 第1期，i-vii頁（2017年3月）DOI:10.5297/ser.1901.editorialiii 卓俊伶、楊梓楣貳、論點一：心理變項對行為反應的影響在探討回饋對動作學習影響的研究，Janelle, Kim, and Singer (1995) 首先開啟探究實驗參與者做決定的議題，其指出並非由實驗者決定回饋之提供，而是實驗參與者決定回饋之需求，該研究發現積極主動涉入 (active involvement) 的過程，自我控制回饋 (self-controlledfeedback) 是學習變項。此後，自我控制回饋研究議題延伸到自我控制練習的探討也發現其為學習變項 (Wulf, 2007)，今在動作學習研究中所有有關自我控制的議題，都以 Deci andRyan (1985) 的自我決定理論 (self-determination theory) 為論述基礎，強調其會影響學習者動機的自主性 (autonomy)，並可促進動作學習。從動作練習過程中的內在動機、注意力焦點與期望等心理變項觀點，近來 Wulf andLewthwaite (2016) 提 出 OPTIMAL (optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation andattention for learning) 理論，解釋與預測其對於學習者之動作學習的正向效果，是透過給予與動機有關之相對較佳的回饋，來增進學習者對於所執行之工作的期望 (expectancy)(Badami, VaezMousavi, Wulf, & Namazizadeh, 2012; Saemi, Porter, Ghotbi-Varzaneh, Zarghami,& Maleki, 2012)，以及外在注意力焦點可促進執行動作的流暢性 (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, &Drews, 2015)。最近，Wulf, Lewthwaite, Cardozo, and Chiviacowsky (2017) 透過實驗設計，發現在動作練習中，學習者的期望、外在注意力與自主性三者之交互作用，具有促進動作學習的效果，同時也認為動作表現的最佳化 (optimization) 將有助於動作學習。參、論點二：知覺與行動的異質效果為求科學實驗上的變因控制，常在操弄上給予同一組實驗參加者相同的實驗處理，雖然參加者間並無違犯同質性的考驗，但有一點需要考慮的是參加者的知覺結果會因此設計而相同嗎？影響知覺的因素並不單一，個人內因上的差異諸如技能高低與經驗多寡等，個人外因條件上諸如外型之身高體重、肢段尺寸、肌力、柔軟度等，知覺精準上諸如是否聚焦在關鍵點以及範圍是否適當等，這些人因變項都會某種程度上因知覺的不同反而在嚴謹控制的一致性操弄中，造成非實驗效果的影響，而使操弄的驗證變得非單一且有多因的交互作用（或稱汙染），最後導致實驗複製上的變異，或實驗結果的誤導。針對這方面，在與動作學習有關的行為反應之研究變項控制與操弄上，應跳脫單一向度物理性的一致，例如同樣大小的器材與設備，也就是所謂的公制尺度 (metric scale)。反而應考量參與者個別的特質，尋求環境器材設備等條件與個人間的相對性一致，例如球的尺寸與手掌大小的相對合宜性，亦即生態觀點 (ecological perspective) 的身體尺度比率 (body-scaled ratio) (Warren, 1984)。如此，雖然看似每個所使用的器材不一致，但其知覺的人因相對性卻達成更高的相似性，進而真正突顯實驗操弄的效果（張智惠，2011；彭國威、卓俊伶、楊梓楣，2009；Chang, Wade, & Stoffregen, 2009; Mark, 1987; Warren & Whang,1987）。iii另一方面，動作學習的研究中，行為反應上的動作輸出常是量測的依變項，其被用以比較後以推估實驗處理的效果，這雖是頗為合理的設計，但若動作表現的好壞不是取決於實驗處理的其他因素呢？亦即實驗參加者因為實驗工作 (experimental task) 要求的不合宜以致無法真正表現其真的行為反應或能力。就如同 Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, and Dolné(1996) 的接球研究，對於參加者接球判斷的表現，不能只單看球的飛行距離與落點對其判斷造成的影響，還需考量動作者的移動與接球能力，亦即所謂的行動尺度比率 (action-scaledratio) (Warren, 1984)。而唯有在工作要求與動作者行動能力的相對合宜之下，表現才真正代表其背後的能力或技能，而能在動作行為反應的研究上做為實驗處理的依變項而推估其效果（例如：黃嘉彬、卓俊伶、陳重佑、楊梓楣，2014；Konczak, Meeuwsen, & Cress, 1992;Meeuwsen, 1991）。肆、結語動作學習與行為反應的研究對象終究是一個動態的生命體，其心理變項與知覺後適應性的調整，是相當重要且具影響力的特質，固定而單一的實驗操控，在立意上提供了絕對恆常情境，但不具彈性的條件卻因而容易引起個體適性上的調整問題。是故，能考量個別人因變項的相對恆常，才能真正突顯動作學習研究中實驗處理的效果。

並列摘要

Introduction: Motor learning research aims to investigate the temporary and long-term effects of experience and practice on motor skills. Traditionally, motor learning research paradigm (Kuhn, 1996) has been constrained by the concept of learning from cognitive psychology, which learning is defined as relatively permanent changes in behavior resulting from experience of interactions between individual and environment. Thus, manipulations of behavioral experience were emphasized in experimental design, for example, practice scheduling and feedback implementation. Some findings, such as practice variability and limited amount of feedback were found to be beneficial for motor learning, and have been made to contribute practical implications in teaching, training and rehabilitation. Although manipulation of behavioral experience in motor learning research may bring objective conclusion, it may neglect individual factors, when organism is serving as participant. From the view-point of research method, we argued that hard science with its intact design is mainly for the non-organism. The basic assumption is dose and responses are equal. Yet, this assumption may not be acceptable in applying to behavior of organism. Relative high variability has been identified in behavior related studies, which cause gap with hard science (Hedges, 1987). The gap is originated from the diversity in specific condition and unique nature of individual. Human factors can be used to describe the individual differences found in human behavior. Therefore, the diversity cannot be neglected or even be assumed for constant. We proposed that psychological and perceptual postulates are the underlying human factors in affecting motor learning. Postulate I: Effects of Psychological Variables on Behavioral Response: In studying the effect of feedback on motor learning, Janelle, Kim, and Singer (1995) began to tackle the issue of self-control. In their study, participants chose feedback upon needs, instead of experimenters. This study found active involvement oriented self-controlled feedback is a learning variable. Thereafter, self-controlled practice was also indicated as a learning variable (Wulf, 2007). Up to this point, self-determination theory characterized by autonomy has been served as theoretical basis for facilitation in motor learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Based on the psychological variables, such as intrinsic motivation, attentional focus, and expectancy in the process of practice, Wulf and Lewthwaite (2016) proposed OPTIMAL (optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning) theory. The OPTIMAL theory is to explain and predict the expectancy (Badami, VaezMousavi, Wulf, & Namazizadeh, 2012; Saemi, Porter, Ghotbi-Varzaneh, Zarghami, & Maleki, 2012), and external attentional focus are considered as learning variables (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015). Recently, Wulf, Lewthwaite, Cardozo, and Chiviacowsky (2017) suggested that the interaction of learner's expectancy, external attentional focus and autonomy would facilitate motor learning. Optimization of performance in the course of practice would also be beneficial to motor learning. Postulate II: Heterogeneous Effects of Perception and Action: To ensure the control variable in scientific experiment, same treatment needs to be applied to the participants in experimental group. Although homogenous effect was tested, it is unclear whether individual perception to the treatment remains to be the same. There are multiple factors that affect perception. For instance, internal factors, including individual-based skill level and experience, and external factors, such as height, weight, limb size, muscular strength, and flexibility would influence the perception. Therefore, under strict experimental control in terms of consistent treatment, unequal individual perception would play a critical role in generating the nonexperiment induced equivocal results. In the end, variations can be found in duplication of experiment, and even worse experimental results may mislead the meaning. Regarding to the motor learning behavioral response, experimental manipulation should refrain from the single dimension of physical consistency. For example, metric scale of the same equipment is often utilized in experiment. On the other hand, equipment should be adapted to be appropriate for individual needs to reach relative consistency (Warren, 1984). This body-scaled ratio consideration would reflect true result from the experimental manipulation (e.g., Chang, 2011; Chang, Wade, & Stoffregen, 2009; Mark, 1987; Peng, Jwo, & Yang, 2009; Warren & Whang, 1987). Motor output in behavioral response has been frequently measured as dependent variable to infer the effect of experimental treatment in motor learning research. However, the outcome is unknown if the experimental task is inappropriate for participant. In catching ball study, Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, and Dolné (1996) showed that determinants of catching judgment are not only flight distance and location, but also capabilities of mobility and catching. This is so called action-scaled ratio (Warren, 1984). Performance truly represents individual capability and/or skill can only be observed when task demand and actor's capability are matched. Therefore, the effect of experimental treatment on behavioral response can be examined (e.g., Huang, Jwo, Chen, & Yang, 2014; Konczak, Meeuwsen, & Cress, 1992; Meeuwsen, 1991). Conclusion: Unique individual is the participant in studying of motor learning and behavioral response. Psychological variables and adaptive regulations through perception of participant could play critical roles in influencing the research outcome. Stable and single experimental manipulation, although offers absolute constant context, its inflexible condition would elicit unnecessary regulation. Therefore, consideration of variables in human factors for relative consistency needs to be taken to acquire true effect of experimental treatment in motor learning research.

參考文獻

張智惠(2011)。肩寛對環境─人─人系統穿越間隙動作的影響。大專體育學刊。13(2)，149-157。

彭國威、卓俊伶、楊梓楣(2009)。伸手抓取動作之身體尺度比率界限。體育學報。42(3)，63-75。

黃嘉彬、卓俊伶、陳重佑、楊梓楣(2014)。隙越動作之環境賦使知覺：準確度、預測因子與年齡效應。體育學報。47(1)，79-89。

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.

Chang, C.,Wade, M. G.,Stoffregen, T. A.(2009).Perceiving affordances for aperture passage in an environment-person-person system.Journal of Motor Behavior.41(6),495-500.