Intertrial correlations

A more complex correlations procedure involves correlating all the practice trials
with each other. This approach provides
Table 13.1 the intetrial correlation matrix from performance on a rhymic arm
movement task reported by thomas and halliwell (the correlations are based on
the spatial eror scores from the task.)

Information about the relationship between the performance scores of any to

trials. The common finding from this analysis has been that trials that are close
to each other in time are more highly corelated than trials that are frather from
each other. This between-trials relationship follows what has been called a
`superdiagonal from. This tern describes the way the trial-to-trial correlations
appear on a correlations matrix that compares all trials againts each other with
te same trials located on both the vertical and the horizontal axes of the matrix.
The correlations of a trial with the trial that succeds it, such as that of trial 2 with
trial 3, is found just above the diagonal of the matrix, where a trial would be
correlated with iteself. On the basis of the prefix super to mean above, a
superdiagonal form occurs when the highhest correlation in the matrix are along
the diagonal that is just above the main diagonal of the matrix. An excellent
example of this approach is in one of the few motor skill studies to apply this
approach. In an experiment by thomas and halliwell (1976), participant learned
three motor skills: the rotary pursuit task, the stabilitometer task and a rhytmic
arm movement task. The corralation matrix in table 13.1 presents the results of
participants inttial fifteen trials side of the body to a visual target in the time with
a metronome. Both spatial and temporal eror constituted the performance score.
As you can see in the table, the highest between-trial correlations are typically
along the diagonal lacated just above the man diagonal of the correlation matrix.
As you can see by looking to your right to compare a particular trial to other
trials, the correlation between trials farther away is generally lower. For
examplle, the correlation between trials 4 and 5 is 0,73, wheareas the corralation
between trials 4 and 12 drops to 0.15. thus, these result provider additional
evidence that performance early in partice is a poor predictor of performance
later in pratice.
The relationship between motor abilities and the stages of learning
The third approach to investigating the relationship between performance
achivement early and later in learning is to compare the motor abilities that
acount for performance achievement at each stage.although controversy exists
concerning whether the abilities associated with performance remain constant or
change during skill learning, the prevailing view is that abilities required to
performance remain constand or change during skill learning, the prevailing view
is that abilities required to perform a skill can change as the person becoms
more proficent at performing the skill. This means that the abilities related to
performing the skill in the early stage of learning may not be the same as those

related to performance in later stages. When considered in terms of how poorly

we can predict performance between early and later stages of learning, this view
provides a basis for accounting for this poor prediction.

(1988, 1992) provider insight into these change

when he proposed a model broadly describing the
relationship between the types of abilities that are
primarily responsible for performance in each of the fits
and posner model (discuassed in chapter 12) figure
13.2 presents a graphic representation of this
relationship. In the cognitive stage of learning, in which
the learner must acquire knowledge about task goal,
rules, and strategies,general cognitive and broadcontent abilities predominate to account for
performance. General cognitive abilities include
reasoning, problem solving and verbal abilities, among
other; broad-content abilities include spatial
orientation, atetntion control.
ackerman

As the person progresses to the associative stage,

perceptual speed ability becoms more predominant in
acounting for performance. This includes the facility to
solve problems related to visual search and memory
use. Finally in the autonomous phase, the demand on
perceptual and motor abilities increases so that
Ability structure
General cognitive and broad-content abilities
Perceptual speed ability
Perceptual and motor abilities
stage of skill learning

cognitive phase
assoclatieve phase
autonomous phase
figure 13.2

they become the abilities that are most highly corelated

with performance.
Ackermam (1992) cites several examples of
experiments that provider support for his model. In
addition, he associates the relationship between the
types of abilities that account for permonce and the
three learning stages. He indicates that the simple
relationship between abilities and learning stage show
in figure 13.2 may relete only to skills in which motor
performance requirements of the task are critical for
task performnce and the information processing
requirements of the task are critical for task
performance and the information processing
requirement do not change in various contexts in which
the skill is performed. Altough ackermen does not use
motor skill classification terminology. His description of
thase types of tasks would be most closely related to
those classified in chapter 1 as closed motor skills in
which regulatory conditions do not change from trial to
trial. In contrast for skil where information processing
demands change from one situasion to anoter, the
three types of abilities do not change in thier
relationship to performance at each stage of learning
ackerman presented evidence basad on the learning of

an air traffic controller task as an example of this type

of skill.
The Ackirman model must be viewed as general
description of three broad categories of humam abilities
and their relationship to skill performance at various
stage of learning. Un fortunately, we do not know
enough about the task specifity aspect of the model to
relate it to specific sport skills or skils of daily living. We
must wait for additional research to provide this
information. However. because the progressen
presented in the model depicited in figure 13.2 is in
general agreement with other views (e. G., fleishman &
mumfrod, 1989) about the chage of the abilitiesperformance relationship during skill acquisition. We
can view this model as a key component of the
explanation for poor early to later learning stage
performance for most complexs motor skills.
The key poin is that it is very difficult to predict
futere achiement in learning a motor skill when bas the
prediction on early performance only, abilities that
account for a persons level of performance change in
importance as the person moves from the early stage
of learning to later stages. those abiities that are
importand later in accounting for a persons
performance score early in practice. Howover,
prediction of future performance improves if the techer,
coach or therapist is aware of both the specific abilities
that are esential to performance in the different stage
of learning. And also the corresponding abilities within
the learner.