Physical therapists have been using balance and weight shifting training to induce improvements in standing and walking. This study compared the effects of kinetic feedback frequency and concurrent kinetic feedback on the performance and learning of a weight shifting skill in young, nondisabled adults. Sixteen young adults without known impairment of the neuromusculoskeletal system volunteered for the study. Subjects in each of three kinetic feedback groups performed a weight shifting task in an attempt to minimize error between their effort and a center of pressure (COP) template for a 12 second period. Feedback was provided: 1) concurrently (concurrent feedback), 2) after each trial (100% feedback), 3) after every other trial (50% feedback). Immediate and delayed (24 hour) retention tests were performed without feedback. During acquisition phase, the concurrent feedback group exhibited less error than either of the post response feedback group. For the immediate retention test, the 50% feedback group exhibited less error than did the 100% feedback and concurrent feedback. During the delayed retention, 50% feedback group displayed less error than did the other groups. But no significant differences were found between groups. These results suggest that practice with concurrent feedback is beneficial for the immediate performance, but not for the learning of this weight shifting skill. Lower frequency of feedback resulted in more permanent changes in the subject's ability to complete the task.

Several studies have evaluated the effects of types of relative frequency and delay interval of knowledge of results(KR) on motor skill learning independently. The purpose of this study was to determine more effective types of KR relative frequency and KR delay interval for motor learning. Forty-six healthy subjects (15 female, 31 male) with no previous experience with this experiment participated. The subjects ranged in age from 20 to 29 years (mean=23.9, SD=0.474). All subjects were assigned to one of four groups: a high-instant group, a high-delay group, a low-instant group, and a low-delay group. During the acquisition phase, subjects practiced movements to a target (400 mm) with either a high (83%) or low (33%) KR relative frequency, and with either an instantaneous or delayed (after 8s) KR. Four groups were evaluated on retention (after 3min and 24hr) and transfer (450 mm) tests. The major findings were as follows: (1) there were no between-group differences in acquisition and short-term retention (p>0.05, (2) a low (33%) KR relative frequency during practice was as effective for learning as measured by both long-tenn retention and transfer tests, compared with high (83%) KR practice conditions (p<0.05), (3) delayed (8s) KR enhanced learning as measured by both long-term retention and transfer tests, compared with instantaneous KR practice conditions (p<0.05), and (4) there were no interactions between KR relative frequency and KR delay interval during acquisition, retention, and transfer phases. The results suggest that relatively less frequent and delayed KR are more effective types for motor learning than more frequent and instantaneous KR.ㅂ