The Effect of Feed Forward Augmented Information in Model Observation on Learning Mini Basketball Penalty Free Throw Skill in Children

Document Type : Research Paper


1 PhD. Student of Motor Learning, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 PhD. Student of Motor Development, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz, Ahwaz, Iran


The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of feed forward augmented information in model observation on learning mini basketball free throw skill in children. For this purpose, 45 children (10 years old) were selected as the sample by convenience sampling method and were divided into three groups: feed forward augmented information + observation, observation + KR feedback, and control (C). The research method was semi-experimental and research design was pretest-posttest and retention test. The task used in this study was mini basketball free throw skill. Firstly, the participants performed 15 trials in the pretest. The acquisition phase consisted of 6 blocks of 15 trials of observation followed by physical training. The retention test was performed 48 hours after the last training block in 15 trials. The data were analyzed by mixed analysis of variance, between-group analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. The results showed that both at the acquisition and retention phases, feed forward augmented information + observation group who were knowledgeable about the quality of the model prior to the observation showed better performance than the other two groups (P<0.05). Generally, these results showed that knowledge of the model performance before observation can make learning of a throwing task more significant than the time when they were knowledgeable after the observation. Therefore, it is suggested that feed forward augmented information on the quality of the model before observation should be used to improve the performance of the subjects.


1.Rymal AM, Martini R, Ste-Marie DM. Self-regulatory processes employed during self-modeling: A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist. 2010:24(1):1-15.
2.Ste-Marie DM, Law B, Rymal AM, Jenny O, Hall C, McCullagh P. Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2012:5(2): 145-76.
3.Badets A, Blandin Y, Wright DL, Shea CH. Error detection processes during observational learning. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2006: 77(2): 177-84.
4.Carroll WR, Bandura A. Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of motor behavior. 1990:22(1): 85-97.
5.Vogt S, Thomaschke R. From visuo-motor interactions to imitation learning: behavioural and brain imaging studies. Journal of sports sciences. 2007:25(5): 497-517.
6.Gelbar NW, Anderson C, McCarthy S, Buggey T. Video self‐modeling as an intervention strategy for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Psychology in the Schools. 2012:49(1): 15-22.
7.Hodges NJ, Williams AM, Hayes SJ, Breslin G. What is modelled during observational learning? Journal of sports sciences. 2007:25(5): 531-45.
8.Dushanova J, Donoghue J. Neurons in primary motor cortex engaged during action observation. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2010:31(2):389-98.
9.Renden PG, Kerstens S, Oudejans RR, Cañal-Bruland R. Foul or dive? Motor contributions to judging ambiguous foul situations in football. European journal of sport science. (2014);14(sup1):S221-S7.
10.Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L. The mirror mechanism: recent findings and perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014
11. Andrieux M, Proteau L. Observational learning: Tell beginners what they are about to watch and they will learn better. Frontiers in psychology.2016:7:51.
12.Battaglia C, D’Artibale E, Fiorilli G, Piazza M, Tsopani D, Giombini A, et al. Use of video observation and motor imagery on jumping performance in national rhythmic gymnastics athletes. Human Movement Science. 2014:384-38:225.
13.Buchanan JJ, Dean N. Consistently modeling the same movement strategy is more important than model skill level in observational learning contexts. Acta psychologica. 2014: 146-27:19.
14.Buchanan JJ, Wright DL. Generalization of action knowledge following observational learning. Acta Psychologica. 2011: 136(1): 167-78.
15.Rizzolatti G, Cattaneo L, Fabbri-Destro M, Rozzi S. Cortical mechanisms underlying the organization of goal-directed actions and mirror neuron-based action understanding. Physiological reviews. 2014:94(2):655-706.
16.Bird G, Heyes C. Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2005: 31(2): 262.
17. Lotfi GH. MM. The Effect of Three Models of Observational Learning on Acquisition and Learning of Archery’s Skill in Novice Boy Adolescents. International Journal of Sport Studies. 2014:4(4): 480-6.
18.Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU, Zihlman K, Wright DL. Observational practice of relative but not absolute motion features in a single-limb multi-joint coordination task. Experimental brain research. 2008:191(2): 157-69.
19.Hayes SJ, Elliott D, Bennett SJ. General motor representations are developed during action-observation. Experimental Brain Research. 2010: 204(2): 199-206.
20.Martini R, Rymal A, Ste-Marie DM. Investigating self-as-a-model techniques and underlying cognitive processes in adults learning the butterfly swim stroke. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering. 2011: 5(4):242-56.
21.Oosterhof NN, Wiggett AJ, Diedrichsen J, Tipper SP, Downing PE. Surface-based information mapping reveals crossmodal vision–action representations in human parietal and occipitotemporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2010:104(2): 1077-89.
22.Andrieux M, Proteau L. Observation learning of a motor task: who and when? Experimental brain research. 2013: 229(1): 125-37.
23.Andrieux M, Proteau L. Mixed observation favors motor learning through better estimation of the model’s performance. Experimental brain research. 2014:232(10): 3121-32.
24.Rohbanfard H, Proteau L. Learning through observation: a combination of expert and novice models favors learning. Experimental brain research. 2012: 215(4-3_: 183-97.
25.Clark S, Ste-Marie D. Peer mastery versus peer coping models: Model type has differential effects on psychological and physical performance measures. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 2002: 43(3): 179-96.
26.Coulson SE, Adams RD, O'Dwyer NJ, Croxson GR. Use of video self-modelling and implementation intentions following facial nerve paralysis. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2006: 13(1): 30-5.
27.Dowrick PW. Self modeling: Expanding the theories of learning. Psychology in the Schools. 2013:49(1): 30-41.
28.Dowrick PW. Self model theory: Learning from the future. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2012: 3(2): 215-30.
29.Ste-Marie DM, Vertes K, Rymal AM, Martini R. Feedforward self-modeling enhances skill acquisition in children learning trampoline skills. Frontiers in psychology.2011: 100-2.
30.Baudry L, Leroy D, Chollet D. The effect of combined self-and expert-modelling on the performance of the double leg circle on the pommel horse. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2006: 24(10): 1055-63.
31.Dowrick PW, Kim-Rupnow WS, Power TJ. Video feedforward for reading. The Journal of Special Education. 2006: 39(4) 194-207.
32.Hemayattalab R, Movahedi A. Effects of different variations of mental and physical practice on sport skill learning in adolescents with mental retardation. Research in developmental disabilities. 2010: 31(1):81-6.
34.Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2005: 76(1): 107-11.
35.Decety J, Grezes J, Costes N, Perani D, Jeannerod M, Procyk E, et al. Brain activity during observation of actions. Influence of action content and subject's strategy. Brain: a journal of neurology. 1997: 120(10): 1763-77.
36.Abreu AM, Macaluso E, Azevedo R, Cesari P, Urgesi C, Aglioti SM. Action anticipation beyond the action observation network: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in expert basketball players. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2012: 35(10): 1246-54.
37.Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, Urgesi C. Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature neuroscience.  2008: 11(9): 1109.
38.Balser N, Lorey B, Pilgramm S, Naumann T, Kindermann S, Stark R, et al. The influence of expertise on brain activation of the action observation network during anticipation of tennis and volleyball serves. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2014: 8:568.
39.Candidi M, Maria Sacheli L, Mega I, Aglioti SM. Somatotopic mapping of piano fingering errors in sensorimotor experts: TMS studies in pianists and visually trained musically naives. Cerebral cortex. 2012: 24(2):435-43.
40.Tomeo E, Cesari P, Aglioti SM, Urgesi C. Fooling the kickers but not the goalkeepers: behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of fake action detection in soccer. Cerebral Cortex.(2012); 23(11): 2765-78.
41.Wright MJ, Bishop DT, Jackson RC, Abernethy B. Functional MRI reveals expert-novice differences during sport-related anticipation. Neuroreport. 2010; 21(2): 94-8.
42.Latash ML. Neurophysiological basis of movement: Human Kinetics; (2008).
43.Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory: prentice-hall, Inc.(1986).
44.Clark SE, Ste-Marie DM. The impact of self-as-a-model interventions on children's self-regulation of learning and swimming performance. Journal of sports sciences.2007;577-86:(5)25.
Volume 10, Issue 2
September 2018
Pages 195-212
  • Receive Date: 12 September 2017
  • Revise Date: 18 September 2018
  • Accept Date: 24 December 2017
  • First Publish Date: 23 August 2018