The effect of normative feedback on stability and efficacy of some selected muscles in a balancing task

  • Saeed Ashrafpoor Navaee Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
  • Alireza Farsi Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
  • Behrooz Abdoli Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran


The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of normative feedback on stability and efficacy of some selected muscles at different task difficulty levels in novice individuals. Thirty participants (age Mean= 22.60, SD=1.89 years) were randomly assigned into three groups of positive, negative normative feedback and control.  The experimental groups participated in 160 acquisition trials (16 blocks of 10trials) for 4 consecutive days (40 per day). Post test was performed after last practice session. The result of ANOVA-repeated measure test indicated that positive normative feedback group outperformed the other groups in stability indices of overall stability (P=0.004), anterior-posterior (P=0.01) and medial-lateral (P=0.001). In addition, the result of Covariance test at electromyography indices of the Soleus and Peroneus brevis showed significant differences in the favor of positive normative feedback in post-test. The findings of the present study showed that normative feedback has functional motivation affect that directly influences physiological changes level of stability control.

KEY WORDS: Electromyography, knowledge of result, normative feedback, performance, stability control.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Allen JB, Howe BL. Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes’ perceived competence and satisfaction. J SPORT EXERCISE PSY. 1998; 20: 280-299.
2. Koka A, Hein V. Perceptions of teachers’ feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. PSYCHOL SPORT EXERC. 2003; 4: 333-346.
3. Mouratidis A, Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, Sideridis G. The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. J SPORT EXERCISE PSY. 2008; 30: 240-268.
4. Black SJ, Weiss MR. The relationships among perceived coaching behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. J SPORT EXERCISE PSY. 1992; 14: 309-325.
5. Horn TS. Intrinsic motivation Relationships with collegiate athletes gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches behavior. J SPORT EXERCISE PSY. 2000; 22: 63-84.
6. Horn TS. Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. Advances in sport psychology Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2002: 309-354.
7. Viciana J, Cervello EM, Ramirez-lechuga J. Effect of manipulating positive and negative feedback on goal orientations, Perceived motivational climate, Satisfaction, Task choice, Perception of ability, and Attitude toward physical education lessons. PERCEPT MOTOR SKILL. 2007; 105(1): 67-82.
8. Nicaise V, Bois JE, Fairclough SJ, Amorose AJ, Cogerino G. Girls and boys perceptions of physical education teacher’s feedback: Effects on performance and psychological responses. J SPORT SCI. 2007; 25(8): 915-926.
9. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 2002; 73: 408-415.
10. Chiviacowsky S, Godinho M, Tani G. Self-controlled knowledge of results: effects of different schedules and task complexity. J HUM MOVEMENT STUD. 2005; 49(4): 277-296.
11. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Feedback after good trials enhances learning. RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 2007; 78: 40-47.
12. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Wally R, Borges T. Knowledge of results after good trials enhances learning in older adults. RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 2009; 80: 663-668.
13. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Machado C, Rydberg N. Self-controlled feedback enhances learning in adults with Down syndrome. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2012; 16: 191-196.
14. Saemi E, Wulf G, Varzaneh AG, Zarghami M. Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances learning in children. Braz. J. Phys. Educ. Sport. 2011; 25: 671-679.
15. Badami R, VaezMousavi M, Wulf G, Namazizadeh M. Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances intrinsic motivation. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(2):360-4.
16. Badami R, VaezMousavi M, Wulf G, Namazizadeh M. Feedback about more accurate versus less accurate trials: differential effects on self-confidence and activation. RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 2012; 83: 196-203.
17. Saemi E, Porter JM, Ghotbi-Varzaneh A, Zarghami M, Maleki F. Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning. PSYCHOL SPORT EXERC. 2012; 13: 378-382.
18. Hutchinson JC, Sherman T, Martinovic N, Tenenbaum G. The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. J APPL SPORT PSYCHOL. 2008; 20: 457-472.
19. Bandura A, Jourden FJ. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. J PERS SOC PSYCHOL. 1991; 60: 941–951.
20. Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Q J EXP PSYCHOL. 2010b; 1: 1-12.
21. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Lewthwaite R. Normative feedback effects on learning a timing task. RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 2010; 81: 425-431.
22. Ávila LTG, Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Positive social comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children. PSYCHOL SPORT EXERC. 2012; 13: 849-853.
23. Stoate I, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. J SPORT SCI. 2012; 30: 815-823.
24. Shumway-Cook A, Woolacott M. Motor control: theory and practical applications. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
25. Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. GAIT POSTURE. 2002; 16: 1-14.
26. Onambe e, Gladys L, Narici Marco V, Rejc E, Maganaris CN. Contribution of Calf muscle-tendon properties to single leg stance ability in the absence of visual feedback in relation to ageing. GAIT POSTURE. 2006; 26: 343-348.
27. Murillo DB, Solana RS, Vera-Garcia FJ, Fuertes NG. Effect of increasing Difficulty in standing balance tasks with visual feedback on postural sway and EMG: Complexity and performance. HUM MOVEMENT SCI. 2012; 31(5): 1224-1237.
28. Nagy E, Toth K, Janositz G, Kovacs G, Feher-Kiss A, Angyan L, Horvath G. Postural control in athletes participating in an ironman triathlon. EUR J APPL PHYSIOL. 2004; 92: 407–413.
29. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning: A behavioral emphasis (5th ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011.
30. Ilies R, Judge TA. Goal Regulation across Time: The Effects of Feedback and Affect. J APPL PSYCHOL. 2005; 90(3): 453-467.
31. Johnson DS, Turban DB, Pieper KF, Ng YM. Exploring the Role of Normative and Performance‐Based Feedback in Motivational Processes. J APPL SOC PSYCHOL. 1996; 26: 973 – 992.
32. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Lewthwaite R. Altering mindset can enhance motor learning in older adults. PSYCHOL AGING. 2012; 27: 14-21.
33. Page P, Frank C, Lardner R. Assessment and treatment of muscle imbalance: the Janda approach. United States: Human Kinetics; 2010.
34. Lederman E. Neuromuscular Rehabilitation in Manual and Physical Therapies: Principles to Practice (1st Ed.).London: Elsevier; 2010.
35. Wulf G. Motor Learning and Control: Changing our view of motor learners: From information processors to human beings. J SPORT EXERCISE PSY. 2014; 36: 1-5.
How to Cite
Ashrafpoor Navaee, S., Farsi, A., & Abdoli, B. (2016). The effect of normative feedback on stability and efficacy of some selected muscles in a balancing task. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology, 5(1), 43-52. Retrieved from
Sport Science