# data[].attributes.body
Eva Boyer's full dissertation of her research using VTFB

and expert modeling

# data[].attributes.body
Powerpoint slide of research done in PE class at the primary level and its effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Video in Primary Physical Education ESAI 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presention of a Research Study into the use of Digital Video to support motivation, assessment and learning in Primary Physical education. ESAI conference, 31s...

# data[].attributes.headline
Video modeling and feedback in gymnastics 

# data[].attributes.subject
Video modeling and feedback in gymnastics 

# data[].attributes.body
in depth look into the research done with expert modeling and video feedback for young gymnasts

# data[].attributes.headline
Self-Controlled Video Feedback in Basketball 

# data[].attributes.subject
Self-Controlled Video Feedback in Basketball 

# data[].attributes.body
Compares self-controlled video feedback to requested feedback and their results for a basketball set shot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Allowing learners to control some aspect of instructional support (e.g., augmented feedback) appears to facilitate motor skill acquisition. No studies, however, have examined self-controlled (SC) video feedback without the provision of additional attentional cueing. The purpose of this study was to extend previous SC research using video feedback about movement form for the basketball set shot without explicitly directing attention to specific aspects of the movement. The SC group requested video feedback of their performance following any trial during the acquisition phase. The yoked group received feedback according to a schedule created by a SC counterpart. During acquisition participants were also allowed to view written instructional cues at any time. Results revealed that the SC group had significantly higher form scores during the transfer phase and utilized the instructional cues more frequently during acquisition. Post-training questionnaire responses indicated no preference for requesting or receiving feedback following good trials as reported by Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002, 2005). The nature of the task was such that participants could have assigned both positive and negative evaluations to different aspects of the movement during the same trial. Thus, the lack of preferences along with the similarity in scores for feedback and no-feedback trials may simply have reflected this complexity. Importantly, however, the results indicated that SC video feedback conferred a learning benefit without the provision of explicit additional attentional cueing.

Keywords: self-control, knowledge of performance, motor learning, knowledge of results (psychology), video self-modeling, basketball

Introduction

Research in motor learning has demonstrated that allowing learners to control some aspect of instructional support benefits skill acquisition (for a review see Wulf, 2007). Self-control (SC) manipulations have been shown to facilitate learning for a variety of tasks, including those that require sequence learning (Chen et al., 2002; Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002, 2005; Patterson and Carter, 2010) and object projection (Janelle et al., 1995, 1997; Chiviacowsky et al., 2008; Kolovelonis et al., 2010). Types of previously examined SC manipulations have included physical guidance (Wulf and Toole, 1999; Wulf et al., 2001), amount of practice (Post et al., 2011), task scheduling (Keetch and Lee, 2007; Wu and Magill, 2011), video demonstration (Wrisberg and Pein, 2002; Wulf et al., 2005), and augmented feedback (Janelle et al., 1995; Chiviacowsky et al., 2008). The majority of these studies have examined the effects of SC feedback in the form of knowledge of results (KR) or, less frequently, knowledge of performance (KP).

Several explanations have been forwarded to account for SC benefits seen in motor learning research. Janelle et al. ( 1995, 1997) suggested that SC prompts learners to process information on a deeper cognitive level while McNevin et al. ( 2000) argued that SC might increase participant motivation. Another perspective forwarded by Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002) suggested that SC allows learners to strategically tailor their experience to fit personal needs and preferences during skill acquisition. This latter argument was based on findings that SC participants reported asking for feedback after so-called good trials and that performance on these trials was superior to performance on no-feedback (i.e., poor) trials.

Another interesting aspect of SC research is that learners have typically requested instructional assistance (e.g., feedback, video demonstration, or guidance) less frequently than might be expected. For example, Wulf et al. ( 2005) found that SC participants requested video demonstration of a basketball jump shot on only 5.8% of acquisition trials. Similarly, Janelle et al. ( 1995) found that SC participants requested KR on an underhanded tossing task after approximately 7% of acquisition trials. It has also been reported that SC participants decrease requests for instructional support as practice progresses. For example, Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002) found that KR requests were made after 44.7% of trials during the first acquisition block, but after only 28% during the last acquisition block. These findings were consistent with the idea that SC prompts deeper engagement in cognitive processes related to decisions about when instructional support is needed and how it can be strategically used to facilitate learning.

The most frequent SC manipulations have involved various types of augmented feedback, usually in the form of KR (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002; Chiviacowsky et al., 2008). SC KR conditions have been shown to facilitate motor learning when compared to groups that received feedback on 100, 50, or 20% of trials, or that were yoked (YK) to the feedback schedules selected by SC counterparts (Janelle et al., 1995; Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002). The one study that used SC KP provided it in conjunction with verbal KP and showed that the combination facilitated learning compared to YK group, 50% KP, and 20% KP groups (Janelle et al., 1997). Typically a SC feedback group is tested against a YK group to control for a potential confound introduced by the effects of reduced frequency of feedback, which has been shown to enhance learning (Winstein and Schmidt, 1990).

Although SC feedback in general has been found to be effective for learning a variety of tasks, its use warrants further examination. One reason relates to the delivery of KP using video replay. Early research involving the use of video KP demonstrated that it facilitated the learning of complex motor skills (Baker, 1970; Rothstein and Arnold, 1976; Rikli and Smith, 1980; Van Wieringen et al., 1989; Hazen et al., 1990; Guadagnoli et al., 2002). In the SC literature, video KP in conjunction with verbal KP has also been shown to facilitate learning compared to a YK condition (Janelle et al., 1997). However, it is still unknown if video KP administered without additional verbal KP is an effective mode of feedback delivery within a SC protocol.

On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that the use of SC video KP would facilitate learning because previous research demonstrates SC benefits across a broad range of tasks and types of instructional support. On the other hand, some video KP research has suggested that video feedback may overwhelm novice learners with too much information, thereby reducing its instructional effectiveness (Rothstein and Arnold, 1976; Emmen et al., 1985). Because video KP conveys information about multiple aspects of performance, novice learners might not know how to effectively identify the most salient aspects of the movement to benefit learning. Rothstein and Arnold ( 1976) noted that the provision of attentional cues along with video replay might assist learners in effectively directing their attention to critical information in the video. Even with the addition of attentional cues, however, video KP still conveys much more information than traditional forms of feedback that typically deal with a single aspect of performance (e.g., algebraic error in meeting a time goal), which has important implications regarding reported preferences for feedback following so-called good trials (e.g., Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002).

The findings regarding the benefits of feedback after good trials (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2007) and SC participants' preferences for feedback after such trials (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002) has been based on experiments that used relatively simple laboratory-based sequential timing tasks and provided feedback on a single aspect of performance. When examining a more complex skill such as learning correct technique for a basketball set shot, one aspect of the motion might be considered good (e.g., correct follow-through) while another aspect might be poor (e.g., incorrect motion at the knee). When focusing on shooting form, the categorization of any given trial as either good or poor will likely be problematic and SC participants might find themselves in a dilemma with respect to their decisions about when to request or how to successfully use video KP. This dilemma might be remedied with the assistance of an experienced instructor (as in Janelle et al., 1997), but such support might not always be readily available. Consequently, it is important to determine if SC video KP as the sole source of feedback can facilitate motor learning.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of SC video KP on the learning of basketball set shot technique by novices. Based on the SC literature, it was hypothesized that the SC group would achieve higher form scores during retention and transfer testing compared to the YK group. It was also hypothesized that the SC group would display a decreasing frequency of feedback requests as the acquisition phase progressed and that the SC group would report asking for feedback following perceived good trials more frequently than after poor trials.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Participants were 28 women (26.43 ± 5.23 years of age) recruited from a major city in the southeast United States. Prior to their involvement in the study, all participants read and signed an informed consent approved by the Institutional Review Board of the first author's institution at the time of data collection. Participants were then assigned an identification number and asked to select a pseudonym to be used during the form ratings of video clips. Participants were randomly assigned to the SC ( n = 14) and YK groups ( n  = 14). All participants were classified as novice basketball players using the criteria that they had no formal experience with organized basketball past the eighth grade.

Apparatus and task

Data was collected in a private gymnasium using a basketball court with NCAA regulation dimensions. The basket was positioned 10 ft (3.05 m) above the court and had a rim circumference of 18 in (0.46 m). Regulation and youth free throw lines (as defined by the city recreation department) were located 15 (4.57 m) and 12 ft (3.66 m) from the backboard, respectively. The set shot task was completed using a NCAA regulation women's basketball with a circumference of 28.5 in (0.72 m) and weight of 20 ounces (0.57 kg).

A video camera (Cannon ZR 960; Cannon, USA, Inc., Lake Success, NY, USA) attached to a tripod was positioned 4.57 m in front and to the right side of the participant along a 45°. The tripod height was set to 1.3 m from the bottom of the camera to best capture the whole body movement required by the task (cf. Wulf et al., 2005). The camera was connected to a 32 in (0.81 m) LCD television (LG model 32LH200C, LG Electronics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) located 3.05 m to the right of the participant and just in front of the youth free throw line. To assist participants in understanding the critical features associated with the set shot a poster (1.12 m × 0.71 m) containing the seven instructional cues for proper set shot form was located 3.05 m behind and to the right side of the participant along a 45°. The experimenter was positioned at the table next to the camera to control video playback while an assistant stood between the camera and the basket to retrieve the ball (see Figure ).

The experimental task was a set shot used for a free throw in basketball. During acquisition and retention, participants completed the task from the youth free throw line (12 Ft). During transfer, the task was completed from the regulation free throw line (15 Ft). The primary goal of the task was to learn correct technique, but performance was assessed for both form and accuracy. For form, performance was evaluated on the first and last trial of each block during acquisition, retention, and transfer. Two skilled raters with extensive basketball experience viewed video clips in a random order and were blind to participant identity and experimental condition and phase. The raters evaluated each video clip for the presence of the seven critical features for proper set shot form and discussed the shooting form until they agreed on the score (adapted from Wulf et al., 2005). The features identified and used in the present study were: (1) proper form - stand on the line with feet shoulder width apart and toes pointed toward the basket; (2) grip/hand orientation - place shooting hand under the ball with non-shooting hand on the side for stability; (3) elbow tucked in - keep shooting arm in toward the body; (4) bend knees - bend legs so that the knees come slightly over the toes; (5) shooting motion - rapid lift of the ball to at least the forehead height with elbow under the ball pointing toward the basket simultaneous with knee extension; (6) ball release - release ball at or near the highest point; (7) follow-through - extend arm upward after ball release and flick the shooting hand (adapted from Amberry, 1996; Wulf et al., 2005; Cleary et al., 2006). For each feature, a shot was awarded a two if the feature was clearly recognizable, a one if it was somewhat recognizable, or a 0 if it was not recognizable (Wulf et al., 2005). For accuracy, the scoring system was adapted from Wulf et al. ( 2005) and Cleary et al. ( 2006). Participants were awarded points based on the following criteria:

points = swish (made basket, ball never touches the rim or backboard)

points = ball touched the rim only

points = ball touched both the rim and backboard

point = ball touched the backboard only

points = ball missed everything ("air ball").

Procedures

Participants were told that they would be using video feedback to improve their basketball shooting skills and that their goal was to improve their shooting form as much as possible. In addition, they were told not to prioritize shot accuracy at the expense of form. Participants then watched a brief (2 min, 45 s) instructional video featuring a former NCAA Division II collegiate women's basketball player who demonstrated proper set shot technique. The video also conveyed the seven instructional features of proper set shot form. After the video, participants were informed that a list of the seven instructional cues for proper set shot form would be available to them throughout acquisition on a poster located behind them and to their right. After the participant watched the video, they took one practice shot with guidance from the experimenter and were then shown how the video feedback would be administered.

Self control participants were told that they would be allowed to access video feedback of their shooting form after any trial during acquisition. They were also told that they would not receive feedback unless they requested it. YK participants were told that they would be shown video feedback of their shooting form after some trials but not others. All participants were told that when video feedback was administered, they could watch the video as many times as they wanted (no participant watched the video for a given trial more than once). They were also told that they would not have access to video feedback or the instructional cues during retention and transfer testing.

During acquisition, participants completed 25 trials (five blocks of five trials). Each trial began with the experimenter's assistant handing the ball to the participant who was then given a verbal cue to begin the trial. The participant was free to take as much time as needed to prepare for each shot. After the trial, the accuracy score was recorded and video feedback was administered as prescribed by the experimental condition. Data were also collected on the frequency of video feedback requests for the SC group and frequency and duration (in seconds) of poster views for both groups. Pilot testing established that a full trial was easily accomplished within 30 s, so the trials during the experiment were spaced at 30 s to equate feedback intervals with post-trial delays on no-feedback trials and to ensure that SC participants did not forego feedback in an attempt to shorten their participation. At the conclusion of each trial block, participants were given an extra 30 s break. At the end of acquisition, participants completed a post-training questionnaire about their experience receiving the video feedback. This questionnaire was similar to questionnaires used in previous research (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002; Patterson and Carter, 2010). The primary difference in the questionnaire administered in the current study was that questions were expanded to a likert scale of one to five with one representing "rarely" and five representing "frequently." Previous questionnaires asked participants about their feedback strategy but SC participants were only allowed to indicate if they requested feedback following good, bad, or both good and bad trials equally. Thus by allowing participants to answer on a likert scale, it is possible that they are able to provide more information about their feedback request strategy, which may help better understand the underlying causal mechanisms for the effect of learner-controlled feedback (see Table ).

Table 1

Approximately 24 h following acquisition, participants returned to the facility to complete a 10-trial retention test followed by a 10-trial transfer test. Each test consisted of two blocks of five trials each. All procedures were similar to acquisition except that no-feedback was provided, the instructional cues were not available, and trials were spaced at 15 s. Participants received a 30 s break between the end of retention and the beginning of transfer. For retention and transfer tests, shots were taken from the youth and regulation free throw lines, respectively.

Data analyses

The primary dependent measure was form score. Shot accuracy, the number of views of the instructional cues, and the duration of viewing time when participants referred to the cues were also analyzed. For SC participants, frequency of video feedback requests was calculated for each trial block. Post-training questionnaire responses were tabulated for the SC and YK groups. For acquisition, average form scores, accuracy scores, and cue view duration were analyzed using three separate 2 (group) × 5 (block) analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last factor. The number of instructional cue views by each group during the first and second halves of acquisition were compared in a 2 (group) × 2 (acquisition half) chi-square analysis. Form and accuracy scores on feedback and no-feedback trials were analyzed using two separate 2 (group) × 2 (trial type) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor. For retention and transfer, form and accuracy scores were analyzed using separate 2 (group) × 2 (block) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor.

Results

Acquisition

The overall frequency of video KP requests by the SC group was 27% throughout acquisition. The number of requests was highest during Block 1 (33%) and decreased as practice progressed through Block 5 (19%).

Figure shows mean form scores for the SC and YK groups throughout acquisition. Although the SC group produced slightly higher form scores than the YK group throughout acquisition, the differences only reach significance during Blocks 3 and 5. This observation was supported by a significant Group × Block interaction, F (4, 104) = 2.93, p = 0.042, η ² = 0.101. Post hoc testing indicated that the SC group scored significantly higher than the YK group on Block 3 ( p = 0.034) and Block 5 ( p = 0.023) only. There was no significant difference between groups during Blocks 1, 2, and 4. Neither the main effect for block, F (4, 104) = 2.27, p = 0.091, nor for group, F (1, 26) = 3.42, p = 0.076, were significant. Although the post hoc comparison for Block 1 showed no significant difference between groups ( p = 0.177), a second examination for potential initial differences was conducted on form scores for Trial 1. The results of the t-test revealed no significant difference between the SC and YK groups ( p = 0.222).

Figure shows mean accuracy scores for the SC and YK groups throughout acquisition. Both groups performed similarly to one another and improved accuracy across trial blocks. These observations were supported by a significant main effect for block, F (4, 104) = 2.60, p = 0.040, η ² = 0.091. Post hoc testing indicated no reliable differences between individual blocks, but the p-values for the comparisons between Block 1 and Blocks 3 and 5 approached the criteria for significance ( p = 0.084 and 0.069, respectively). Neither the main effect for group, F (1, 26) = 0.001, p = 0.976, nor the Group × Block interaction, F (4, 104) = 0.755, p  = 0.557, were significant.

Both groups viewed the instructional cues for a similar amount of time and the mean viewing time decreased during acquisition (Block 1, M = 1.9 s; Block 2, M = 1.75 s; Block 3, M = 1.2 s; Block 4, M = 0.7 s; Block 5, M = 0.7 s). The decrease in viewing time was supported by a significant main effect for block, F (4, 104) = 3.13, p = 0.036, η ² = 0.108. Post hoc analyses revealed no significant difference from one block to another, however. Neither the main effect for group, F (1, 26) = 2.18, p = 0.152, nor the Group × Block interaction, F (4, 104) = 0.339, p = 0.776, were significant. The SC group also looked at the instructional cues more frequently than the YK group. The SC group viewed the cues 34 times during the first half of acquisition and 28 times during the second half while the YK group viewed the cues 23 times and 7 times during the first and second halves of acquisition. The chi-square analysis indicated that the SC group viewed the cues more frequently than expected while the YK group viewed the cues less frequently than expected during both acquisition halves, χ ² = 4.09, p  = 0.043.

Form scores on feedback and no-feedback trials were very similar for both the SC and YK groups. This observation was supported by the absence of a significant main effect for trial type, F (1, 24) = 1.213, p = 0.282, or Group × Trial Type, F (1, 24) = 0.258, p = 0.616. The main effect for group, F (1, 24) = 3.31, p = 0.082, was also not significant. In addition, accuracy scores on feedback and no-feedback trials were very similar for both groups. This observation was supported by the absence of a significant main effect for trial type, F (1, 26) = 0.000, p = 0.983, or Group × Trial Type, F (1, 26) = 2.69, p = 0.113. The main effect for group, F (1, 26) = 0.015, p  = 0.903, was also not significant.

Retention

The SC and YK groups performed similarly in terms of form scores. The main effects for group, F (1, 26) = 3.81, p = 0.062, and for block, F (1, 26) = 2.02, p = 0.167, were not significant. Neither was the Group × Block interaction, F (1, 26) = 2.02, p = 0.167. The SC and YK groups also performed similarly in terms of accuracy scores. The main effects for group, F (1, 26) = 0.057, p = 0.812, and for block, F (1, 26) = 0.235, p = 0.632, were not significant. Neither was the Group × Block interaction, F (1, 26) = 0.059, p  = 0.81.

Transfer

The SC group demonstrated higher form scores than the YK group. This observation was supported by a significant main effect for group, F (1, 26) = 4.67, p = 0.04, η ² = 0.153. Neither the main effect for block, F (1, 26) = 0.00, p = 1.00, nor the Group × Block interaction, F (1, 26) = 0.436, p = 0.515, were significant. In respect to accuracy scores, the SC and YK groups performed similarly during transfer. The main effects for block, F (1, 26) = 2.59, p = 0.12, and group, F (1, 26) = 1.57, p = 0.221, were not significant. Neither was the Group × Block interaction, F (1, 26) = 0.392, p  = 0.537.

Questionnaire

The average scores for the Likert scale items on the post-acquisition questionnaire are reported in Table . The SC group indicated that they asked for feedback occasionally after both good trials ( M = 2.93; 3 = occasionally) and poor trials ( M = 3.07). The YK group indicated that they received feedback when they needed it occasionally ( M = 3.50). They also indicated that they received feedback occasionally after both good trials ( M = 3.21) and poor trials ( M = 3.29). Just under half ( n = 6) of the YK group indicated a preference for receiving feedback after good trials while the others ( n = 8) indicated a preference for feedback after poor trials.

The results from the open-ended questions indicated that several SC participants ( n = 10) reported not asking for video KP for a number of reasons. Some ( n = 5) chose to not receive feedback because their inherent feedback was as expected. That is, they felt their form was close to what was desired. Others ( n = 4) noted that they already "knew" what they did wrong. One participant did not request feedback due to embarrassment about incorrect form. SC participants indicated using feedback when they wanted to confirm their inherent feedback about either correct or incorrect form ( n = 8) and to evaluate their own form ( n  = 5). One participant noted that they had no specific strategy for requesting video KP.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of SC video KP on the learning of basketball set shot technique by novices. The most important contribution to motor learning research was the demonstration that SC of video KP as the sole source of feedback facilitated learning of the basketball set shot technique as evidenced by the superior form scores during transfer. This finding provided partial support for the first hypothesis and extended earlier research on the use of SC video KP. Janelle et al. ( 1997) previously found a SC video KP benefit when it was provided in conjunction with verbal KP from an experienced instructor. Although the inclusion of verbal KP in that study followed Rothstein and Arnold's ( 1976) recommendations about using verbal cues with video feedback, it also introduced a confound that prevented a clear demonstration that SC manipulations might extend to the use of video KP, per se. The results of the present study indicated that SC over video KP as the sole source of feedback can benefit motor learning for a fairly complex, real-world skill.

The results regarding feedback requests supported the second hypothesis and were partially consistent with previous research (e.g., Janelle et al., 1997; Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002). The decreasing frequency of requests by the SC group from 33% during Block 1 to 19% during Block 5 supported the second hypothesis regarding decreasing requests. In addition, the overall frequency of requests was consistent with some previous research (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002), but not as low as others (Janelle et al., 1995, 1997). A point of divergence from previous reports was the lack of differences between feedback and no-feedback trials. Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002) reported that SC participants requested feedback after so-called good trials more frequently than after poor trials. The accuracy of the participants' interpretations was confirmed by findings that feedback trials were more accurate than no-feedback trials. In two follow-up studies, Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2005, 2007) demonstrated that learning in a SC feedback protocol was superior when the decision to request feedback followed rather than preceded a trial and that feedback after the most accurate trials in a block facilitated learning more than feedback after inaccurate trials. Taken together, the investigations by Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002, 2005, 2007) argue that feedback after good trials facilitates learning to a greater extent than feedback after poor trials. From this and the preference for good trial feedback, it appears that the benefit of SC feedback is tied to the self-evaluation of performance and a strategic decision to seek feedback when that performance is determined to be good. The third hypothesis of the current study (i.e., that performance on feedback trials would be superior to performance on no-feedback trials) was based on this reasoning. The current results, however, did not corroborate these earlier findings nor support the third hypothesis. Nevertheless, SC video KP did confer a learning benefit despite the lack of preferences for and distinction between good and poor trials. So the current study suggests that the mechanisms underlying SC feedback benefits may be more complex than previously believed.

The post-training questionnaire results indicated that SC participants requested feedback occasionally after both good and poor trials whereas Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002) reported that 67% of participants indicated requesting feedback mostly after good trials. This discrepancy might be due to the different questionnaire formats. Chiviacowsky and Wulf's ( 2002) questionnaire used items asking about when feedback was requested and included five categorically distinct response options (e.g., "mostly" after good trials or "mostly" after poor trials). The questionnaire in the current study changed the response options to a Likert scale so that participants could indicate the frequency with which they requested feedback after both good and poor trials (with responses ranging from "rarely" to "frequently"). Thus, the reported frequencies for each trial type were free to overlap, which allowed for the possibility that feedback might be requested for different reasons on different trials. Indeed, the current results indicated that SC participants requested feedback after both good and poor trials occasionally (which represented the middle value on the scale). This finding did not support the third hypothesis (i.e., a preference for good trial feedback). Interestingly, the YK participants showed a similar pattern in their perceptions of when they receiving feedback, indicating occasionally after both good and poor trials. Approximately half the YK participants reported that they would have preferred to receive feedback after good trials while the other half indicated a preference for feedback after poor trials. Thus, the current results produced no evidence that perceptions about the quality of a trial were systematically linked to whether or not feedback was requested (by SC participants) or received (by YK participants). Taken together, the results of the quantitative portion of the questionnaire suggested that participants did not have a clear preference for receiving feedback after good trials as suggested by Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002).

The absence of a preference for receiving feedback after good trials might have been due to the type of feedback used in the current study. As Rothstein and Arnold ( 1976) pointed out, video feedback can convey large amounts of information, which could presumably deal with a wide range of form characteristics reflecting various degrees of quality. For example, a participant might have elected to view video KP because of an issue related to her follow-through, which in one case might have been executed well at the end of an otherwise poor trial and in another case executed poorly at the end of an otherwise good trial. This possibility introduces a bit of a conundrum for understanding exactly how learners might use complex feedback information such as that presented in video KP. The open-ended responses from the questionnaire indicated that participants asked for feedback to either confirm their intrinsic feedback or to evaluate their form. Both of these reasons are consistent both with traditional views of augmented feedback as providing corrective information used to guide future performance (Salmoni et al., 1984) and with Chiviacowsky and Wulf's ( 2002) contention that learners use feedback to confirm successful outcomes. Moreover, the primary reason for not requesting feedback - that inherent feedback was as expected - could also fit either perspective. Some participants indicated that they did not request feedback because they "knew" their form was "correct" while others didn't do so because they "knew" their form was "incorrect." Overall, the results of the questionnaire in combination with the lack of differences between feedback and no-feedback trials indicated that the use of feedback in at least some SC settings is more complex than has been previously described.

Another finding that warrants discussion was the participants' use of the written instructional cues provided during acquisition. Janelle et al. ( 1995, 1997) suggested that the benefits of SC feedback might be due to deeper information processing related to the task. Such deeper engagement in the learning process might be manifested in the number of resources that a participant uses during practice. That is, it would be expected that a more engaged learner would use more sources of information to facilitate the learning process. The finding that the SC group viewed the instructional cues more frequently than expected was consistent with this perspective and provides a plausible explanation for their superior form scores during transfer. Although the additional viewing was not associated with increased accuracy it seems reasonable to expect that success in one aspect of a task (shooting form) might enhance a learner's motivation to continue practicing until benefits in shooting accuracy would eventually become observable.

Collectively, the results of the present study extend the possible benefits of SC feedback during skill acquisition to the use of video KP as the sole source of feedback. However, the results also suggest possible shortcomings in current explanations regarding how learners use feedback in SC protocols, especially when using video KP. Although it appeared that participants' reasons for requesting feedback are tied to some form of subjective evaluation of performance, as suggested by Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002), the present results suggested that such evaluation might not always be consistent with other measures of performance. There was no quantitative evidence to suggest that participants could distinguish between good and poor trials or that they used feedback as a way to confirm a successful performance (with respect to form). When learning a complex task such as the basketball set shot, it appears likely that learners might seek video KP for a variety of reasons related to their performance (e.g., confirmation or error correction). Chiviacowsky and Wulf ( 2002) argued that confirmation of success indicated the potential importance of the motivational function of augmented feedback. The present findings additionally indicate that the role(s) for augmented feedback might vary according to type of tasks being learned and the type of feedback presented.

The results of the current study have important practical and theoretical implications. From a practical standpoint, there is now evidence to support the use of SC video KP in a wider range of instructional settings. Importantly, the presence of an experienced instructor to provide attentional cueing related to video replay does not seem to be an absolute prerequisite to obtain a SC video KP benefit. Although this type of support is likely to be helpful when available, practitioners need not exclude the use of SC video KP when it is not. From a theoretical standpoint, however, it is important to note that the study design did not strictly test the independent effects of SC video feedback. The results indicated that the provision of SC prompted participants to view the instructional cues more often, and it is likely that the information in the cues also facilitated performance and learning. Although this introduces a limitation in terms of understanding the independent effects of SC video KP, the study design nevertheless represented a realistic example of how video feedback can enhance the instruction of novices. In the absence of a skilled observer to provide individualized KP, a poster with cues allows for the uniform presentation of form information to all participants. The fact that the SC group viewed the poster over twice as many times as the YK group indicated that they were engaged the learning process as suggested by Janelle et al. ( 1997).

The finding that participants did not indicate a preference for feedback after (or were not able to distinguish between) good and poor trials was of interest from a theoretical standpoint. Although this finding was consistent with Chiviacowsky and Wulf's ( 2002) argument that SC feedback choices do not support the traditional view that feedback information is used to correct errors (Salmoni et al., 1984), neither did it support their further contention that SC participants use feedback to confirm successful performances. Consequently, the observed SC benefit in the current study is most consistent with Janelle et al.'s ( 1997) idea that SC enhances motivation and prompts learners to engage more deeply in learning the task. Future research should be directed at more detailed examinations of how SC participants behave when presented with feedback information on multiple aspects of task performance or via multiple modes of delivery, and should endeavor to directly assess motivation and task engagement emerging from such approaches.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Amberry T. (1996). Free Throw: Seven Steps to Success at the Free Throw Line. New York, NY: Harper Perennial

Baker H. P. (1970). Film and Videotape Feedback: A Review of Literature. Washington, DC: Bureau of Education

Chen D. D., Hendrick J. L., Lidor R. (2002). Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: the use of self-regulated feedback information. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 43, 69-86

Hazen A., Johnstone C., Martin G. L., Srikameswaran S. (1990). A videotaping feedback package for improving skills of youth competitive swimmers. Sport Psychol. 4, 3, 213-227.

Rothstein A. L., Arnold R. (1976). Bridging the gap: application of research on videotape feedback and bowling. Mot. Skills Theory Pract. 1, 35-64

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Self-Controlled Video Feedback on the Learning of the Basketball Set Shot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Allowing learners to control some aspect of instructional support (e.g., augmented feedback) appears to facilitate motor skill acquisition. No studies, however, have examined self-controlled (SC) video feedback without the provision of additional attentional cueing. The purpose of this study was to extend previous SC research using video feedback about movement form for the basketball set shot without explicitly directing attention to specific aspects of the movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Linda LeBlanc, Action Editor

Abstract

The effects of combining video modeling by experts with video feedback were analyzed with 4 female competitive gymnasts (7 to 10 years old) in a multiple baseline design across behaviors. During the intervention, after the gymnast performed a specific gymnastics skill, she viewed a video segment showing an expert gymnast performing the same skill and then viewed a video replay of her own performance of the skill. The results showed that all gymnasts demonstrated improved performance across three gymnastics skills following exposure to the intervention.

Keywords: athletic performance, gymnastics, sport psychology, video feedback, video modeling

Behavioral procedures have proven to be effective in improving athletic performance across a diverse array of sports, including ballet ( Fitterling & Ayllon, 1983), basketball ( Harle & Vickers, 2001), tennis ( Rikli & Smith, 1980), swimming ( McKenzie & Rushall, 1974), football ( Smith & Ward, 2006), and gymnastics ( Wolko, Hrycaiko, & Martin, 1993). Two behavioral procedures used for improving skill execution are video feedback and video modeling by experts ( Hazen, Johnstone, Martin, & Srikameswaran, 1990). Video feedback involves showing an athlete a video clip of his or her own performance of a particular skill (Hazen et al.), and video modeling involves presenting the athlete with a video clip of an expert performing the skill ( Boschker & Bakker, 2002; SooHoo, Takemoto, & McCullagh, 2004; Winfrey & Weeks, 1993; Zetou, Tzetzis, Vernadakis, & Kioumourtzoglou, 2002).

The combined use of video modeling and feedback holds promise for improving the execution of complex athletic skills such as gymnastics routines that require multiple precise body movements and positions. Only two studies have examined the effectiveness of the combination of video feedback and video modeling by experts. Harle and Vickers (2001) helped basketball players improve eye gaze at the hoop to increase free-throw accuracy, whereas Rikli and Smith (1980) helped adult tennis players improve their serves. Because one study was conducted on a simple skill involving sustained eye gaze and the other study involved a group design that showed minimal effects, the effects of video feedback and video modeling by experts on complex athletic performance are not well established. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of combining video modeling by experts with video feedback on the development of three complex gymnastics skills.

METHOD

Participants and Settings

Four female competitive gymnasts (7 to 10 years old), who had been receiving training from the same south Florida gymnastics club for the last few years, participated in the study. Each gymnastics practice was 3 hr in length, with approximately 30 min devoted to the skills included in this study. The intervention was implemented during these regularly scheduled gymnastics practices three times a week.

Materials

The materials included two digital video cameras for recording the participant's performance and a laptop computer with software to display simultaneously the participant's performance clip and the expert model. Expert model clips of each of these three skills were selected from videotaped performances of USA national team members participating in the 2006 USA championships. The expert clips were selected by a USA Brevet gymnastics judge (the highest rating in the USA Junior Olympics program) in consultation with coaches of elite athletes and the coach assisting with this study. The skills were performed on a piece of gymnastics equipment called the uneven bars, which consisted of a metal frame supporting two parallel bars set at different heights. Colleen and Megan used a strap bar (the gymnast's hands are strapped to a single high bar to ensure safety) when learning "the giant," a routine that involves swinging 360 degrees around the bar in a handstand position.

Target Behaviors, Data Collection, and Interobserver Agreement

The target behaviors assessed in this study included a backward giant circle to handstand (i.e., a giant), a kip cast, and a clear hip circle. The kip cast and clear hip circle are both swings around the low bar ending in a handstand (complete definitions of all three target behaviors are available from the first author). Data were collected using a 28-item checklist for each skill, with each component scored as either correct or incorrect, resulting in a percentage correct for each trial. The experimenter recorded the first attempt to perform a skill in each set of uninterrupted repetitions, and graduate students trained by a USA Brevet gymnastics judge later scored the skill from the video.

One third of the assessment sessions were scored by two independent observers. The percentage of agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements for the 28 components of a skill by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Mean interobserver agreement percentages across baseline, intervention, and follow-up phases were as follows: 91%, 93%, and 95% for Becky; 92%, 93%, and 94% for Colleen; 91%, 91%, and 95% for Serena; and 91%, 94%, and 94% for Megan.

Design and Procedure

The effects of video modeling by experts and video feedback were evaluated in a multiple baseline across behaviors ( Delano, 2007) design for each participant.

Baseline

Baseline data were collected for the three targeted skills under normal practice conditions. In baseline and intervention phases the experimenter asked the coach to continue his usual coaching procedures, which consisted of verbal feedback after the dismount from the apparatus.

Video modeling by experts with video feedback

After the gymnast performed the target skill, she walked to the computer, and the computer technician told her, "Try to match the expert gymnast on the left." The gymnast then viewed the left computer screen showing an expert gymnast performing the same skill followed by her own video performance on the right screen. Next, the gymnast viewed the two video clips side by side, and the technician freeze-framed each clip at five different points for that skill. The technician played the expert model of the skill again at normal speed, followed by the gymnast's own performance of the skill at normal speed. Each session lasted approximately 50 s. The gymnast then attempted the target skill two more times as she completed the set of three repetitions of the skill. The gymnast did not receive verbal feedback from the technician or any other research team member. The coach continued practice as usual, using verbal performance feedback without the video procedures.

Follow-up assessment

After the final intervention session for each target behavior, a follow-up session was conducted weekly without video modeling and feedback.

Social Validity Measures

Social validity was assessed following the study using questionnaires administered to the gymnasts, coach, and assistant coaches. The questionnaires used a 5-point Likert-type scale to assess how much they liked the procedure, whether they would recommend it to others, how easy it was, how helpful it was, and how effective it was in skill development. As another measure of social validity, three USA Brevet gymnastics judges scored two baseline video clips and two intervention clips for each skill (randomly selected from the second half of baseline and intervention for each skill) that each gymnast performed to simulate how the skills would be judged in competition and to determine if the improvements in skill performance between baseline and intervention would be corroborated by judges' scoring.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Because the girls continued to receive coaching during baseline and some modest increases were noted in the longer baselines for some skills, the baseline means reported below consist of the last 12 data points from the longer baselines. The baseline, intervention, and follow-up means for Becky were 21%, 42%, and 52% for the clear hip circle and 57%, 68%, and 66% for the kip cast. The baseline, intervention, and follow-up means for Colleen () were 38%, 57%, and 49% for the kip cast; 25%, 49%, and 60% for the giant; and 35%, 43%, and 46% for the clear hip circle. The baseline, intervention, and follow-up means for Serena () were 51%, 69%, and 67% for the kip cast; 33%, 55%, and 58% for the clear hip circle; and 45%, 59%, and 52% for the giant. The baseline, intervention, and follow-up means for Megan () were 18%, 39%, and 56% for the clear hip circle; 26%, 48%, and 51% for the giant; and 67%, 73%, and 70% for the kip cast. The percentage increase over baseline was variable, ranging from 9% (Megan's kip cast) to 116% (Megan's clear hip circle), with a mean increase from baseline across girls and skills of 53%.

The social validity questionnaire results showed that the coaches and gymnasts, respectively, liked the procedure ( M  =  4.33, M  =  4.75), would recommend it to others ( M  =  4.67, M  =  4.25), thought it improved performance ( M  =  4.33, M  =  4.25), and thought it was helpful ( M  =  4.67, M  =  4.75) and easy to follow ( M  =  4.0, M  =  4.5). The judges' scoring of baseline and posttraining video clips using standard gymnastics judging deductions showed small and varied improvements in the skills from baseline to intervention phases (contact the first author for details). However, the judges' scores indicated that the gymnasts' skills were still in the developmental stages even after intervention, and that their skills were not yet ready for competition at the conclusion of the study.

The results of this study indicate that exposure to the intervention improved skill performance more quickly than regular practice and coaching alone. These results suggest that adding video modeling by experts with video feedback to typical coaching and practice techniques could reduce the number of practice sessions required to improve a difficult physical skill. Follow-up measures demonstrated that, for the most part, the gymnasts maintained their higher level of performance even after the intervention was no longer available for that skill. In addition, social validity assessments showed that the procedure was well received by the gymnasts and coaches.

Although the video modeling and feedback intervention enhanced skill performance to above-baseline levels, near-flawless skill performance (80% to 100% correct) was seldom achieved by the gymnasts. Although these results might seem disappointing and suggest that the intervention was not successful, it is important to view the results in the context of complex athletic skill development, which requires precise body movements and increasing strength over time. Scores near 100% accuracy would suggest flawless performance, something rarely achieved even by Olympics-caliber gymnasts. The findings add to the scant literature supporting the effectiveness and usefulness of the procedure (e.g., Harle & Vickers, 2001; Hazen et al., 1990; Rikli & Smith, 1980) and suggest its potential to enhance the effects of coaching across a variety of sports.

A few limitations are worthy of note. The freeze-frame images of the gymnasts were sometimes slightly blurred due to technical limitations of the cameras. In addition, the expert and novice gymnast clips could not run in perfect synchronization due to differences in the performance rates of the gymnasts. Future research that incorporates more advanced video technology might capture clearer body images and provide better opportunities for the gymnast to discriminate various elements of his or her body positions as correct or incorrect. Also, future research could analyze the effect of delayed video feedback after practice, using more precisely synchronized freeze-frame comparisons of the expert gymnast with the novice gymnast. Finally, some of the gymnasts developed injuries doing other skills, which may have to some degree impaired their performance of the skills being measured in this study. Although minor injuries often occur in athletic performance, they may influence the results in unforeseen ways.

We believe that video modeling by experts and video feedback for competitive gymnasts has the most potential to be effective for increasing the execution of a skill that has already been learned at a basic performance level, as was found by Rikli and Smith (1980). Future research needs to replicate this study with skills the gymnast has nearly mastered or performed in competition. In this way the athletes could focus more on fine discriminations in body positions and movements, without the additional task of learning the basic body movements of the skill.

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted as a master's thesis by the first author.

REFERENCES

Boschker M.C.J, Bakker F.C. Inexperienced sport climbers might perceive and utilize new opportunities for action by merely observing a model. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2002;95:3-9.

Delano M.E. Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007;40:345-351. [PMC free article]

Fitterling J.M, Ayllon T. Behavioral coaching in classical ballet: Enhancing skill development. Behavior Modification. 1983;7:345-368.

Harle S.K, Vickers J.N. Training quick eye improves accuracy in the basketball free throw. The Sport Psychologist. 2001;15:289-305.

Hazen A, Johnstone C, Martin G.L, Srikameswaran S. A videotaping feedback package for improving skills of youth competitive swimmers. The Sport Psychologist. 1990;4:213-227.

McKenzie T.L, Rushall B. Effects of self-recording on attendance and performance in a competitive swimming training environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1974;7:199-206. [PMC free article]

Rikli R, Smith G. Videotape feedback effects on tennis serving form 1980.

Smith S.L, Ward P. Behavioral interventions to improve performance in collegiate football. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2006;39:385-391. [PMC free article]

SooHoo S, Takemoto K.Y, McCullagh P. A comparison of modeling and imagery on the performance of a motor skill. Journal of Sport Behavior. 2004;27:349-366.

Winfrey M.L, Weeks D.S. Effects of self-modeling on self-efficacy and balance beam performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1993;77:907-913.

Wolko K.L, Hrycaiko D.W, Martin G.L. A comparison of two self-management packages to standard coaching for improving practice performance of gymnasts. Behavior Modification. 1993;17:209-223.

Zetou E, Tzetzis G, Vernadakis N, Kioumourtzoglou E. Modeling in learning two volleyball skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2002;94:1131-1142.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VIDEO MODELING BY EXPERTS WITH VIDEO FEEDBACK TO ENHANCE GYMNASTICS SKILLS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The effects of combining video modeling by experts with video feedback were analyzed with 4 female competitive gymnasts (7 to 10 years old) in a multiple baseline design across behaviors. During the intervention, after the gymnast performed a specific ...

# data[].attributes.body
Benefits of videotaping and how to efficiently use equipment to enhance skill development

# data[].attributes.headline
Article about creator of "Coach's Eye"  app and how to benefit from it 

# data[].attributes.subject
Article about creator of "Coach's Eye"  app and how to benefit from it 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week we took a quick look into the future of Physical Education through the eyes of PE teacher Mark Bulmer. This week we had a chance to take a deeper look into what Mark is doing with Coach's Eye video analysis in PE. Enjoy!

About Mark Bulmer

Mark Bulmer is a 25-year-old Physical Education teacher working at Rossett School, Harrogate, North Yorkshire UK. As a PE teacher, Mark stays active by; playing rugby, golf, badminton and keeping fit by running and going to the gym. He is extremely passionate about his job and introducing my students to the new technologies available to better their engagement in lessons.

"The Coach's Eye app has revolutionized how I teach my lessons and give feedback to students. It has improved my teaching, relationship with students, engagement of students, how I deliver plenaries and how I plan my lessons. I tell everyone I meet about this app and I know it will grow to overtake other sporting analysis software."

~Mark Bulmer, PE Teacher

How long have you been teaching?

I have been teaching 3 years at Rossett and even in my short teaching career, I have seen the school move from strength to strength in its use of technological strategies to make teaching and learning outstanding. Rossett is a large secondary school with approx 1500 students on roll from 11-19 years old. Rossett prides itself on Assessment for Learning (AFL) and has emerged as a lead school, using cutting edge technology to engage/enthuse students. Teaching staff is dedicated to the use of Twitter and Real Smart (Visual Learning Environment) for teaching/homework in addition to other technological tools, with future developments in the pipeline for iPads in the classroom.

How exactly are you using Coach's Eye?

I am using Coach`s Eye to engage students and provide the opportunity for my students to peer assess/discuss strengths' and areas for development in sporting performance. I first tried the App during a rugby lesson where I was teaching the key concepts of outwitting opponents. This has allowed me to teach my lesson on the field/all-weather pitch using Coach`s Eye on my iPhone 3GS and providing feedback to students on a larger computer screen/laptop at the end of the lesson through the use of Dropbox. This has proved a key teaching tool which allows for an excellent plenary at the end of the lesson and assists with future lesson planning.

Coach's Eye is great to use for PE lessons/BTEC/GCSE/A level lessons - where analyzing performance is a key element of the course.

How does video analysis fit into your lessons?

I start lessons with a skill-based warm up with students before delivering our lesson objectives for the lesson. Students are then aware of the theme of the lesson. I then use progressive skills practices where students can practice the skill in isolation from the game/match situation. I then try to build on the skill before students take part in conditioned games/activities. I then use Coach`s Eye to film games before providing feedback on students performance, this can be in a constructive form where I focus on their areas for development or praising students for something they have done well showing the aesthetic appreciation of the skill. I can then use the video footage taken in the lesson as part of a plenary in the changing rooms where students can sit and watch their performance (very popular).

How difficult was it to incorporate Coach's Eye?

I have found Coach`s Eye really easy to implement in lessons and I have even asked students to film, review and provide commentary on their own/peers sporting performance. The App is very easy to install/use and the online tutorials/guidance are really helpful for getting going. The recent update has allowed sharing reviewed footage much more accessible and usable. This has provided instant feedback on how students can improve their sporting skills as well as acknowledging good skills in sporting performance.

How are your students using video analysis with Coach's Eye?

Students were provided with a quick demonstration of both how to use the app and how to provide feedback. Students were then left to film each other, review the footage and provide feedback. Additionally, I have used the app during the lesson and using the share features made available through the latest update of Coach`s Eye, I can now email/tweet or use drop box to share the footage. This has worked really well when teaching students, reviewing footage and then watching on a laptop in the changing rooms as a plenary.

How have the students responded to video review?

The response from students has been brilliant, all classes seem very keen to use the app and a lot of students have even downloaded the app on their own phones. Students are really keen to be filmed performing and skill and receive feedback and watch their performance. This has enabled me to create a teaching environment where students can take constructive criticism and aim to improve their sporting performance in a positive setting.

Are you seeing improvement in your students' performance/skills?

Students found watching their own performance fun and engaging and liked getting feedback on how to improve. This led to improved students performance/motivation and behavior in the lesson. Reviewing with video doesn't just acknowledge the areas for development it also reviews good sporting performance.

I feel students are more aware of how they can improve their skills through seeing what's going well and what's going not so well. For example, one student in a rugby lesson didn't understand why it is important to draw (fix) a defender before passing the rugby to a partner in space. Another student needed some support on improving his defending in football so through watching their own footage, students could then see which tactic/strategy to use when defending to be the most effective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week we took a quick look into the future of Physical Education through the eyes of PE teacher Mark Bulmer. This week we had a chance to take a deeper look into what Mark is doing with Coach's Eye video analysis in PE. Enjoy!

# data[].attributes.body
Video on how videotaping enhances skilled development in PE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Video Feedback to Enhance Learning in P.E.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Project presented by Eastern Oregon University, PES494 Teaching Individual Sports class.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses how videotape feedback from self or instructor is more effective than verbal feedback from instructor. Further has data to show its findings

# data[].attributes.body
shows a great app to use when videotaping a skill. Allows for immediate feedback through freeze framed pictures of body alignment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
肌の水分量を上げる方法はこれだけ！間違った肌のケアしていませんか？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
顔が乾燥して顔の皮がむけてしまう。という方は非常に多いのではないでしょうか。

その原因は様々ありますが、ほとんどの方がその原因を継続的に行ってしまっている事により、乾燥による顔の皮むけがますますひどくなっていくのです。

ここでは、顔の皮むけの様々な原因について解説しています。

日常的な肌へのダメージが原因の場合

日常的な肌へのダメージが積み重なり、肌をモロくしてしまいます。

その結果、あなたは 常に顔の皮むけがしやすくなっている状態 になっているのです。

それどころかそのモロくなった肌はスカスカで、水分が蒸発しやすい状態にもなっています。

ここではあなたが、ついついやってしまいがちな 顔へのダメージによる皮むけの原因 を解説していきます。

メイクは、あなたが思っている以上に顔にダメージを与えます。

皮膚は、想像以上にダメージを受けやすく、非常に弱いものです。

メイクをする際は「優しく」を心がけましょう。

特に 目元 は顔の中でも一番皮膚が薄い部分。

洗顔の目的はメイク落としや、朝の顔の掃除など、様々な場面で行うかと思います。

その際に汚れを落とすことだけに意識がいってしまい、 強くこすって顔を洗っていませんか？

これもあなたの肌にダメージを蓄積させてしまいます。

洗顔は優しく行いましょう。

無意識に顔をこする癖がある方がいますが、これもダメージを与える原因です。

または、仕事中眠くなったら目をこする方も要注意。

水分がない状態で日常的に顔をこする行為は、かなりのダメージを与えてしまい、結果的に肌をボロボロにしてしまうのです。

これも顔の皮向けの大きな原因。

紫外線によるダメージ

紫外線によるダメージは、肌をこするといった直接的な行為ではないため、あまり意識していないかもしれません。

ですが紫外線は表面にダメージを与えるどころか、肌の奥まで入り込みそして刺激を加えメラニン色素を生み出します。

その結果、顔の皮むけだけではなく、シミやソバカスといった原因にもなってしまうのです。

不規則なターンオーバーを生み出してしまう原因

ターンオーバーとは 肌が新しく生まれ変わるサイクル の事。

顔の皮むけが起きやすい状態というのは、 肌が痛んで古い状態であることが多く、 ターンオーバーが正常に働いていない ことも非常に多いです。

丈夫な皮膚は顔の皮むけを起こしにくいのは当然。ダメージを受けた肌をも新しくしてくれます。

逆に傷んでいる皮膚は、皮向けを起こしやすい状態です。

ですから、顔の皮むけが起きやすい状態を改善するために、ターンオーバーを正常化させておかなければならないのです。

ここではのターンオーバーを乱してしまう様々な原因の紹介します。

あなたの周りにはとてもおいしい外食チェーンなど、様々な誘惑がありますよね。
その誘惑に負けて、 脂っこい食事や栄養の少ない食事ばかり していませんか？

栄養不足でもターンオーバーが悪化してしまいます。

栄養の中でも特にビタミンCは美肌に必須。

ビタミンCは、肌の生まれ変わりサイクル（ターンオーバー）の正常化を促します。

ニキビの治療薬でもビタミンCが使われるほど、肌に直接的に関わってくる栄養素。

顔の皮むけがひどい方は、毎日行うものである食生活を見直すことも非常に重要。

あなたには喫煙の習慣はありませんか？

または、あなたのすぐ近くに喫煙者はいませんか？

タバコの煙は、ビタミンCの濃度を低下させる原因。

ビタミンCはさきほど説明した通り、美肌に必要で、ターンオーバーのサイクルを正常化してくれます。

顔の皮むけがひどい方は、タバコの煙には要注意。

睡眠不足はターンオーバーの周期を狂わせます。

肌のゴールデンタイム という言葉をご存知でしょうか？

肌のゴールデンタイムには個人差がありますが、簡単にまとめて言えば、「22時～3時の間に寝てるとお肌にいいよ」という時間の事。

この時間帯に眠っていると、成長ホルモンの分泌が促され、それが結果的に 肌細胞の修復をしてくれたり、 老化細胞の排除 をしたりする事ができます。

睡眠不足は美肌の大敵 と言われる理由はココにあったのです。

人間はストレスを感じると、血管が収縮してしまい、その結果、血行が悪くなってしまいます。

血行が悪くなれば、肌の隅々に血液が行き渡らなくなり、肌のターンオーバーが乱れてしまうのです。

それどころか、血行が悪くなれば血色の悪い顔となってしまい、顔の皮むけどころか、不健康な印象を相手に与えてしまいます。

さらに、ストレスは女性ホルモンの分泌を低下させます。

この現代社会で「ストレスを感じるな」というのはムリな話かもしれませんが、少しぐらい自分の趣味に時間を割き、ストレス解消をするのもターンオーバーを促す結果につながります。

ホルモンバランスが乱れている

ホルモンバランスが乱れているのもターンオーバーを乱します。

上記で出てきた原因ばかりですね。

さきほども言いましたが、ホルモンバランスが崩れると、しわやたるみの原因にもなるので要注意。

空気が乾燥しがちな冬は、特に顔の皮むきを引き起こしがち。

さらに、冬はエアコンやストーブを焚いて部屋をあったかくしていますよね。

乾燥している空気にさらに乾燥しやすい状況を作っている事で､顔の皮むけがひどくなってしまう傾向にあります。

乾燥しやすい季節は、湿度にこだわってください。

入浴後のお手入れ不足

入浴後は、お風呂の水が蒸発する際にもともと皮膚に存在していた水分も一緒に蒸発してしまいます。

さらにタオルで拭くときにゴシゴシ拭いていませんか？

入浴は毎日するものですから継続的に肌へダメージを与えてしまっているのです。

入浴に対するダメージを防ぐのであれば化粧水や入浴剤がおすすめです。

特に入浴剤はお風呂に浸かっている間に成分を浸透させることができるので、 入浴剤にこだわるのも顔の乾燥の原因を減らす方法の1つ です。

バリア機能の低下が顔の皮むけの一番の原因

上記では「毎日の習慣による顔の皮むけ」や、「肌がうまく生まれ変われないことによる顔の皮むけ」について説明しました。

ここでは一番重要な「防御力」について解説しています。

防御力とはつまり、顔のバリアのお話。

顔のバリア機能が高まれば、必然的に顔の皮むけは防げるようになっていきます。

ダメージを受けやすいと...

そもそも顔の皮むけを起こしてしまう原因は、バリア機能がうまく働いていないからです。

バリア機能がうまく働いていれば、 顔の皮むけをしにくい状態を作り上げる ことができます。

簡単に言えば、今あなたが顔の皮むけをしてしまっているのは、肌のバリア機能が低下している事が一番の原因です。

肌のバリア機能が低下している今の状態は、非常にダメージを受けやすい状態と言えるでしょう。

バリア機能がないと保湿ができない

肌にバリア機能がないと、水分を簡単に逃してしまうこととなり、保湿をする事ができません。

逆に、肌にバリア機能があれば、肌の内側にある水分を外に逃がすことがありません。

結果的に肌の水分量が上がって、常に保湿をしている状態となり、肌の乾燥を防ぐことができます。

「肌のバリア機能と保湿の力」で､より強力にダメージを防ぐことができるようになるのです。

思い返してみてください。

顔の皮むけがひどい状態の時に、肌は潤っていましたか？

潤っていませんよね。

それはあなたの顔が乾燥状態にあり、その結果、顔の皮むけにつながっているのです。

バリア機能を回復すれば顔の皮むけを引き起こさなくなり、ついでに保湿もできる。

バリア機能はセラミド

さきほどからバリア機能といっていますが、その正体はセラミド。

肌が綺麗と言われる人は肌にセラミドがたくさんある状態。

セラミドあれば、ダメージ受けにくく顔の皮むけをしません。

逆にあなたのように顔の皮むけがひどい方は、セラミドは無く、常に乾燥状態でバリア機能が皆無の状態。

要するに顔の皮むけを改善したいのであれば、セラミドを増やせば一気に解決へ近づくということになるのです。

セラミドを効果的に増やすには？

セラミドを増やす方法は非常に簡単。

それは セラミドを増やす化粧水を使えばいいだけ です。

注意して欲しいのは、セラミド入り化粧水ではなく、 セラミドを増やす化粧水 です。

セラミドを増やす化粧水は「お米の化粧水」だけ

「 顔の乾燥による皮むけ対策は保湿が一番！始めは化粧水から始めよう」でも解説しているように、お米の化粧水は、 日本でセラミドを増やす効果が認められている唯一の成分であるライスパワーNo.11を含んでいるので、 セラミド不足の肌を改善 する事ができます。

その結果、顔の皮むけを防ぐことができるのです。

一番効果的なのはお米の化粧水ですが、それに伴って食生活の改善や睡眠不足の解消なども心がけていくと、劇的に顔の皮むけは改善していくでしょう。

乳液はちょっと待って！

「化粧水しかダメなの？乳液はダメ？」

ここで上記のような疑問が浮かび上がると思います。

結論から言えば、 乳液をいきなり選ぶのはおすすめできません 。

というのも、乳液は油分が非常に多くあなたの肌に過剰に油分を与えてしまう可能性があるからです。

これはテカリやニキビ、肌荒れの原因を引き起こすので、いきなり乳液を選ぶのはおすすめできません。

ただし、そこまでして乳液を使う必要はありません。

そもそも、お米の化粧水でセラミドを増やし、保湿と顔の皮むけを改善することができるのですから。

過度なケアはNG！セラミド化粧水だけでOK

顔の皮むけの原因 をお分りいただけたでしょうか。

ここで顔の皮むけの原因を、もう一度おさらいしておきましょう。

日常的に肌にダメージを与えることで､顔の皮がむけやすい状態を作っています。

さらに、不規則な生活習慣によるターンオーバーの乱れで、ボロボロになった肌が綺麗な肌へ生まれ変わらず、その結果、ずっと顔の皮むけ状態が続いてしまうのです。

そもそもセラミド不足（バリア機能不足）なため、極端に顔へのダメージに弱く、常に顔の皮むけが起きやすい状態になっています。

そんな厄介な顔の皮むけは、セラミド不足を補ってバリア機能を高めれば、顔の皮むけを防ぐことができます。

さらにセラミドによってバリア機能が高まっているため、保湿効果も高まり、さらに防御力がアップします。

セラミドを増やすには乳液でもセラミド化粧水でもなく、「ライスパワーNo.11が含まれたお米の化粧水」

顔の皮むけの原因と対策はこうでしたね。

では、どのお米の化粧水が効果的にセラミドを増やすことができるのかというと、それはライースリペアです。

ライースリペアは、どのお米の化粧水よりも効果的なライスパワーNo.11を含んでいます。

その理由は、 ライースリペアだけが独自の改良を加えたライスパワーNo.11を含んでいる からです。

これにより、より強力なライスパワーNo.11の恩恵を受けることができ、効果的にセラミド増やしていくことができます。

管理にもライースリペアを愛用していますが、トライアルセットのみで､顔の皮むけ程度のセラミド不足であれば簡単に補うことができますよ。

今ならトライアルセットを格安で購入する事ができますので、一度お試しくださいね。

顔の皮むけも改善したいけど、乾燥肌の改善も気になる。という方は、次のページで肌の水分量を上げる方法を解説しています。

肌の水分量をあげれば、顔の皮むけは必然的に改称され、そればかりかセラミドたっぷりでキメの細かい肌を手に入れることができますよ。

次のページ>>> 肌の水分量を上げる方法はこれだけ！間違った肌のケアしていませんか？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
顔が乾燥して皮むけする原因はコレ！間違いだらけの生活習慣と顔のケア

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
顔が乾燥して顔の皮がむけてしまう。という方は非常に多いのではないでしょうか。 その原因は様々ありますが、ほとんどの方がその原因を継続的に行ってしまっている事により、乾燥による顔の皮むけがますますひどくなっていくのです。 ここでは、顔の皮むけの様々な原因について解説しています。 日常的な肌へのダメージが積み重なり、肌をモロくしてしまいます。 その結果、あなたは ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Use of videotaping in Physcial Education classes 

# data[].attributes.subject
Use of videotaping in Physcial Education classes 

# data[].attributes.body
How videotaping and verbal feedback is very successful for this type of learning (ie. performing skills and techniques in a physical education setting)

# data[].attributes.body
physical and mental demand on the body from dancing and how muscle memory from our cerebellum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dancing improves brain function on a variety of levels. Two recent studies show how different types of practice allow dancers to achieve peak performance by blending cerebral and cognitive thought processes with muscle memory and 'proprioception' held in the cerebellum. Through regular aerobic training that incorporates some type of dance at least once a week anyone can maximize his or her brain function.

When was the last time you went out dancing? I make a habit of going to my local dance club called the Atlantic House at least once a week. I have been dancing to DJ David LaSalle's music in the same spot in front of a huge speaker since 1988. Some of my friends make fun of me for 'chasing butterflies' and acting like a fool on the dance floor. I don't care. I know that dancing and spontaneously trying to spin like Michael Jackson is good for my brain.

While researching this blog, I pulled up some old footage of Michael Jackson spinning. He was an incredible dancer. Please take a minute to watch Michael Jackson dance here. In this video you can see how practicing a dance move like 'spinning' from childhood reshapes the cerebellum ( down brain) and allows a dancer to create superfluidity and not get dizzy while rotating quickly.
Professional dancers don't get dizzy. Why?
Do you feel dizzy sometimes when you stand up? Does a fear of falling prevent you from exploring the world more? If you are prone to dizziness, a new study has found that dancing may help improve your balance and make you less dizzy. In September 2013, researchers from Imperial College London reported on specific differences in the brain structure of ballet dancers that may help them avoid feeling dizzy when they perform pirouettes. You don't have to train to become a professional ballet dancer to benefit from some type of dancing.

The article is titled, " The Neuroanatomical Correlates of Training-Related Perceptuo-Reflex Uncoupling in Dancers." The research suggests that years of training can enable dancers to suppress signals from the balance organs in the inner ear linked to the cerebellum. The findings, published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, could help to improve treatment for patients with chronic dizziness. Around one in four people experience this condition at some time in their lives.

In a previous Psychology Today blog titled " Fear of Falling Creates a Downward Spiral" I talk about the risk of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) due to a fear of falling and impaired balance. Taking time throughout your life to improve the function of your cerebellum through aerobic activity and some type of dance is a fun and effective way to avoid the perils of dizziness.

For this study the researchers at Imperial College London recruited 29 female ballet dancers and, as a comparison group, 20 female rowers whose age and fitness levels matched the dancers. Interestingly, most rhythmic aerobic exercise is going to be a bi-pedal motion or very linear-like rowing. It is interesting to note the benefits to proprioception and balance based in the cerebellum that is enhanced through dance.

The study volunteers were spun around in a chair in a dark room. They were asked to turn a handle in time with how quickly they felt like they were still spinning after they had stopped. The researchers also measured eye reflexes triggered by input from the vestibular organs. Later, they examined the participants' brain structure with MRI scans.

Normally, the feeling of dizziness stems from the vestibular organs in the inner ear. These fluid-filled chambers sense rotation of the head through tiny hairs that sense the fluid moving. After turning around rapidly, the fluid continues to move, which can make you feel like you're still spinning.

In dancers, both the eye reflexes and their perception of spinning lasted a shorter time than in the rowers. Sensory input evokes low-order reflexes of the cerebellum and higher-order perceptual responses of the cerebrum. Vestibular stimulation elicits vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR) and self-motion perception (e.g., vertigo) whose response durations are normally equal.

I have a section in my book, The Athlete's Way, which explores the connection to VOR and muscle memory during REM sleep that I will write about more in a future blog. On Page 54 I say, "It became clear to me that creating a dreamlike default state of flow through sport is linked to VOR, too. It is really like REM in reverse. This is my original hypothesis. My father thinks it makes sense, but other scientists have yet to explore this theory." The new research from London this month offers exciting new connections to VOR and peak performance.

Dr. Barry Seemungal, from the Department of Medicine at Imperial, said: "Dizziness, which is the feeling that we are moving when in fact we are still, is a common problem. I see a lot of patients who have suffered from dizziness for a long time. Ballet dancers seem to be able to train themselves not to get dizzy, so we wondered whether we could use the same principles to help our patients."

The brain scans revealed differences between the groups in two parts of the brain: an area in the cerebellum where sensory input from the vestibular organs is processed and in the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for the perception of dizziness.

"It's not useful for a ballet dancer to feel dizzy or off balance. Their brains adapt over years of training to suppress that input. Consequently, the signal going to the brain areas responsible for perception of dizziness in the cerebral cortex is reduced, making dancers resistant to feeling dizzy. If we can target that same brain area or monitor it in patients with chronic dizziness, we can begin to understand how to treat them better."

"This shows that the sensation of spinning is separate from the reflexes that make your eyes move back and forth," Dr. Seemungal said. "In many clinics, it's common to only measure the reflexes, meaning that when these tests come back normal the patient is told that there is nothing wrong. But that's only half the story. You need to look at tests that assess both reflex and sensation." In summary, dancers display vestibular perceptuo-reflex dissociation with the neuronatomical correlate localized to the vestibular cerebellum.
Visualizing Movements can Improve Muscle Memory
A July 2013 article titled, " The Cognitive Benefits of Movement Reduction: Evidence From Dance Marking " found that dancers can improve the ability to do complex moves by walking through them slowly and encoding the movement with a cue through 'marking'. Researcher Edward Warburton, a former professional ballet dancer, and colleagues were interested in exploring the "thinking behind the doing of dance."

The findings, published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggest that marking may alleviate the conflict between the cognitive and physical aspects of dance practice - allowing dancers to memorize and repeat steps more fluidly. This creates what I call " superfluidity," which is the highest tier of 'flow.'

Expert ballet dancers seem to glide effortlessly across the stage, but learning the steps is both physically and mentally demanding. New research suggests that dance marking-loosely practicing a routine by "going through the motions"-may improve the quality of dance performance by reducing the mental strain needed to perfect the movements.

"It is widely assumed that the purpose of marking is to conserve energy," explains Warburton, professor of dance at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "But elite-level dance is not only physically demanding, it's cognitively demanding as well. Learning and rehearsing a dance piece requires concentration on many aspects of the desired performance." Marking essentially involves a run-through of the dance routine, but with a focus on the routine itself, rather than making the perfect movements.

"When marking, the dancer often does not leave the floor, and may even substitute hand gestures for movements," Warburton explains. "One common example is using a finger rotation to represent a turn while not actually turning the whole body."

To investigate how marking influences performance, the researchers asked a group of talented dance students to learn two routines: they were asked to practice one routine at performance speed and to practice the other one by marking. Across many of the different techniques and steps, the dancers were judged more highly on the routine that they had practiced with marking-their movements on the marked routine appeared to be more seamless, their sequences more fluid.
Conclusion: Synchronizing the Cerebrum and Cerebellum Creates Superfluidity
The researchers conclude that practicing at performance speed didn't allow the dancers to memorize and consolidate the steps as a sequence, thus encumbering their performance. This type of visualization and marking could be used to maximize performance across many fields and areas of life.

"By reducing the demands on complex control of the body, marking may reduce the multi-layered cognitive load used when learning choreography," Warburton explains. "Marking could be strategically used by teachers and choreographers to enhance memory and integration of multiple aspects of a piece precisely at those times when dancers are working to master the most demanding material," says Warburton.

It's unclear whether these performance improvements would be seen for other types of dance, Warburton cautions, but it is possible that this area of research could extend to other kinds of activities, perhaps even language acquisition. He said, "Smaller scale movement systems with low energetic costs such as speech, sign language, and gestures may likewise accrue cognitive benefits, as might be the case in learning new multisyllabic vocabulary or working on one's accent in a foreign language."

If you'd like to learn more on these topics please check out my Psychology Today blogs: " The Neuroscience of Madonna's Enduring Success", " Gesturing Engages All Four Brain Hemispheres"," The Neuroscience of Speaking With Your Hands", " 3 Daily Habits That Boost Brainpower. "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dancing improves brain function on a variety of levels. Two recent studies show how different types of practice allow dancers to achieve peak performance by blending cerebral and cognitive thought processes with muscle memory and 'proprioception' held in the cerebellum.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nonverbal language for imaging and learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Nonverbal language for imaging and learning

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses how dancers learn through observing and imitating and how generating the material (skill) requires them to be cognitively invested.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the use of observation as a means of assessment in PE classes and how technology is enhancing this method by the use of video clips.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research article on the implementation of technology in dance 

# data[].attributes.subject
Research article on the implementation of technology in dance 

# data[].attributes.body
This article explores ways that technology has enhanced how people learn in dance classes. It outlines a project done at York University where they used podcast to teach, review, and enhance a dance class .