Introduction

Motor skill acquisition represents a fundamental aspect of human learning, with feedback mechanisms playing a pivotal role in this process. This study investigates how different types of cognitive feedback - confirmative, corrective, and combinational - influence the acquisition and retention of dart-throwing skills, while testing the predictions of the Attentional Bottleneck Approach. Traditional motor learning theories have emphasized the importance of corrective feedback for error reduction (Salmoni et al., 1984), while contemporary perspectives highlight the motivational benefits of confirmative feedback (Badami et al., 2012). The Attentional Bottleneck Approach suggests that combining both types of feedback creates optimal learning conditions by simultaneously addressing error correction and performance reinforcement (Gould & Weinberg, 2011). However, empirical evidence remains inconclusive, particularly for discrete motor skills like dart-throwing where movement precision and outcome accuracy are closely related. The current study addresses three critical gaps in the literature: the lack of comparative studies examining standalone versus combined feedback approaches in ecologically valid tasks; the under-investigated interaction between feedback type and learners' error estimation capabilities; and the contradictory findings regarding optimal feedback strategies for complex motor tasks. Our research aims to determine: 1) whether combinational feedback yields superior results compared to isolated confirmative or corrective feedback when paired with error estimation, and 2) how different feedback types affect both kinematic parameters (joint coordination, release velocity) and accuracy outcomes during acquisition and retention phases.

Method: The study employed a randomized controlled design with 60 novice male university students (aged 18-24 years) assigned to one of four experimental conditions: confirmative feedback (reinforcing correct performance elements), corrective feedback (identifying and diagnosing errors), combinational feedback (alternating between confirmative and corrective using a sandwich approach), and a no-feedback control group. Participants completed a standardized dart-throwing task at a regulation distance of 2.37 meters, with performance measured using both outcome scores and 3D motion capture technology (100Hz sampling rate) to analyze kinematic patterns. The experimental protocol consisted of three phases: pre-testing (15 baseline throws), acquisition (60 practice trials divided into 4 blocks of 15 throws with assigned feedback after each block), and retention testing (10 throws after 24 hours without feedback). Prior to receiving feedback in the acquisition phase, participants were required to estimate their performance errors, allowing examination of the interaction between self-assessment and external feedback. Dependent variables included accuracy scores (0-10 scale based on target hits) and three key kinematic measures: wrist release velocity consistency, relative phase coordination (shoulder-elbow and elbow-wrist), and movement variability (standard deviation of joint angles). Data were analyzed using mixed-design ANOVAs in SPSS (v26) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, reporting effect sizes (η²) and maintaining a significance level of α = 0.05.

Results: The study yielded several key findings regarding feedback effectiveness. All feedback conditions significantly outperformed the no-feedback control group in both acquisition and retention phases (p < 0.001, η² = 0.41), confirming the fundamental role of feedback in motor learning. Interestingly, while corrective feedback demonstrated superior immediate effects on movement mechanics - particularly in improving shoulder-elbow coordination (DRP = 28.1° vs. 52.6° for confirmative feedback, p < 0.001) - confirmative feedback showed better long-term accuracy retention (mean retention score = 59.6 vs. 36.5 for corrective feedback, p = 0.003). The combinational feedback approach, contrary to the Attentional Bottleneck hypothesis, failed to demonstrate clear advantages over single-feedback approaches in either accuracy or kinematic measures. Kinematic analysis revealed that corrective feedback produced the most biomechanically efficient throwing motions with significantly lower joint coordination variability, while confirmative feedback resulted in more consistent release velocities during retention testing (SD = 46.8 m/s vs. 104.6 m/s for corrective feedback, p = 0.006). A particularly noteworthy finding was the moderating effect of error estimation - participants who engaged in self-assessment prior to receiving corrective feedback showed 22% better retention than those who received the same feedback without this preparatory cognitive engagement (p = 0.012). This pattern was not observed in the confirmative feedback condition, suggesting different cognitive mechanisms underlying these feedback types.

Conclusion: The current findings offer important theoretical and practical insights into motor skill acquisition. The differential effects of feedback types support a multi-dimensional view of motor learning, where corrective feedback optimally enhances movement form while confirmative feedback better promotes performance stability. These results partially challenge the Attentional Bottleneck Approach's assumption about the universal benefits of combined feedback, suggesting instead that cognitive load considerations may limit the effectiveness of combinational approaches for novice learners. The significant interaction between error estimation and feedback effectiveness highlights the importance of the learner's active cognitive engagement in the feedback process, supporting contemporary theories of self-regulated learning. From a practical perspective, our results suggest that optimal training protocols for discrete skills like dart-throwing might employ a phased approach: using corrective feedback during initial skill acquisition to establish proper technique, then transitioning to confirmative feedback to enhance performance consistency. Several limitations should be acknowledged, including the focus on novice performers and a single discrete skill, which may limit generalizability to continuous skills or expert populations. Additionally, the 24-hour retention interval, while standard in motor learning research, leaves open questions about longer-term retention patterns. Future research directions could usefully explore neurological correlates of different feedback types using neuroimaging techniques, investigate optimal feedback sequencing strategies, and examine how these findings apply across different skill levels and types of motor tasks. This study advances our understanding of motor skill acquisition by demonstrating that different feedback types serve distinct but complementary functions in the learning process, and provides evidence-based guidance for designing more effective training protocols in both sports and rehabilitation settings.

Keywords: motor learning, feedback types, dart-throwing, attentional bottleneck, skill acquisition, movement kinematics, error estimation

Ethical Considerations

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Ethical considerations have been taken into account in carrying out this research in accordance with the guidelines of the Ethics Committee of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

Funding

This study was extracted from the Ph.D. thesis of first author at Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology of the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

Authors' contribution

All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the article and writing of the original and subsequent drafts.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The researcher considers it his duty to acknowledge and appreciate the cooperation of all participants in this study who provided the necessary cooperation in carrying out this research.