Sports skill practice: the pros and cons of feedback

A: Participants walked on a treadmill with an infrared emitting diode (blue dot) affixed over the 5th metatarsal of the non-dominant leg to capture end-point position and thus step height. B: Target height calculations. The distance between the peaks of the participant’s maximum foot trajectory (purple dot) and normal foot trajectory (blue dot) was defined as the foot trajectory window. Targets during the acquisition phase were set to 55 %, 65 %, 75 %, 85 % or 95 % of foot trajectory window.

The subjects were split into two groups. Both groups performed the same training, and throughout the training, both received feedback about whether they were successful at achieving the target height.  However, the distribution of feedback was quite different between the two groups:

• One group received a constant rate of feedback throughout the test, receiving feedback on every target step ie 50 steps for each of the 8 blocks.
• The faded group received half as much feedback, and this feedback was also received on a faded schedule: 50 steps each for the 1st and 2nd blocks, 32 steps on the 3rd, 24 steps on the 4th, 16 steps on the 5th, 12 steps on the 6th, 10 steps on the 7th, and 6 steps on the 8th. Not only did the faded group receive less feedback, but they also received relatively less and less as the test progressed.

Throughout the training, researchers measured the accuracy of the subjects in achieving their target step heights. A post-test was also performed where the subjects took 20 steps at 75% of the stepping window, all without the aid of any feedback. This tested how well the subjects had learnt to achieve the desired step height as a result of their training. They also performed the same task with an ankle weight equal to 2.5% of their body weight to test the transfer of skills to a similar task. Both tests were performed at 24 and 48 hours following the initial training to determine how well the subjects retained any improvements they made.

What they found

Unsurprisingly, both groups improved their performance as they worked through the training protocol. Additionally both groups performed equally well during the transfer test performed immediately after training. However, the faded feedback group showed significant improvements in the retention test performed 24 hours and 48 hours after training (see figure 2). In other words, while both feedback schedules improved short-term performance, it was the faded feedback schedule that seemed to lead to better learning and skill retention - perhaps due to these athletes being forced to improve their own internal feedback systems, rather than relying on external feedback provided during training.

Figure 2: Retention and transfer in the end-point precision task

Blue plot = constant feedback during the learning task; Red plot = faded feedback. Although the initial performance error was the same right after the learning phase, the faded feedback group showed lower error rates at 24 and 48 hours in both the same (Ret) task and the transfer of skill (Tran – with ankle weight) task – ie they had achieved better long-term mastery of the task.

Practical implications for athletes

Traditionally, coaches and athletes both prefer to get as much feedback as possible, as quickly as possible. But while feedback is critical for learning, giving as much feedback as possible and as quickly as possible might not be the most effective approach. Slowly reducing feedback provision may actually be a more effective way of facilitating long-term improvements in performance.

The tricky part is that providing a constant rate of feedback is not immediately problematic. In fact, it leads to similar short-term performance improvements as faded feedback. However, that can be misleading as it is long-term improvements that are more important over time. That’s not to say that faded feedback is always superior; what’s important to understand is the impact these strategies have on learning and performance outcomes. Either approach can be appropriate depending on the context.

In warm-up situations prior to competition, the primary goal is to maximize performance on the day. In that respect, it makes sense to provide athletes with as much feedback about their performance as they’d like during warm-up. If they want information about pacing times, heart rates, or any other data point, there’s no long-term harm in providing them with that information. Their goal is to perform well immediately.

Additionally, during the initial stages of learning a new skill, it can be helpful to provide more feedback at first to help athletes gain some confidence in their ability to accomplish the set task. Both the constant feedback and the faded feedback group received a lot of initial feedback. For those athletes that get more assurance from consistent feedback, providing it to them early can help with initial confidence.

However, the optimal approach changes once the emphasis shifts toward long-term learning. As soon as athletes start demonstrating basic competency and understanding during a given activity, reducing feedback is likely to be more effective at improving retention and transfer over time. With any developmental efforts, the long-term is what matters most. Athletes need to be able to retain what they learn well into the future, and in most sporting contexts, they need to be able to transfer the skills they learn to various situations. This is particularly true as no one competitive environment is ever exactly the same. By removing external feedback, athletes are forced to rely on their internal feedback, the same feedback they use during while performing.

This is where the ‘art’ and ‘science’ of coaching meet. On one hand, research studies like the one we just examined provide evidence of a concept. In this case, it’s the idea that feedback is most effective at promoting retention and transfer when it is faded over time. On the other hand, it is up to the coach to determine exactly when to fade feedback, as well as how much to fade it, and with which athletes this approach is most effective.

To start, be mindful of how feedback is being provided to athletes. Are they receiving constant feedback? If you’re an athlete who is self-coached, be more mindful of how often you are providing feedback to yourself. In both cases, consider when it may be more appropriate to fade feedback, even if that is uncomfortable or impairs short-term performance. Remember, there is a difference between performing and learning, and in training environments learning is often the goal. If you’ve been consistent with providing feedback, begin experimenting with faded feedback to better enhance long-term development and performance!

References

1. Hum Mov Sci. 2026 Feb:105:103442. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2025.103442