Electroencephalographic evidence for a reinforcement learning advantage during motor skill acquisition.
EEG
ERP
FRN
Feedback
Learning
Motor learning
Reinforcement learning
Supervised learning
Journal
Biological psychology
ISSN: 1873-6246
Titre abrégé: Biol Psychol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0375566
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
04
06
2019
revised:
12
01
2020
accepted:
19
01
2020
pubmed:
26
1
2020
medline:
9
9
2020
entrez:
26
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The feedback that we receive shapes how we learn. Previous research has demonstrated that quantitative feedback results in better performance than qualitative feedback. However, the data supporting a quantitative feedback advantage are not conclusive and further little work has been done to examine the mechanistic neural differences that underlie the relative benefits of quantitative and qualitative feedback. To address these issues, participants learned a simple motor task in quantitative and qualitative feedback conditions while electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded. We found that participants were more accurate and had a larger neural response - the feedback related negativity - when qualitative feedback was provided. Our data suggest that qualitative feedback is more advantageous than quantitative feedback during the early stages of skill acquisition. Additionally, our findings support previous work suggesting that a reinforcement learning system within the human medial-frontal cortex plays a key role in motor skill acquisition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31981584
pii: S0301-0511(20)30009-0
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107849
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107849Informations de copyright
Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.