Fig 1.
Position of reflective markers.
Red markers were used to track segments. Blue markers denote selected anatomical landmarks.
Table 1.
Summary of the constraints incorporated into NLP informed MI scripts.
Fig 2.
Mean movement patterns normalized to 100 data points for each cluster within all kinematic variables across all technique assessment sessions for NLP and LP conditions.
Fig 3.
Percentage of trials for movement patterns in each technique assessment session.
C6 comprised the most trials from session 1 (28%) to test 3 (27%) for the NLP condition. For the LP condition, C11 displayed the greater number of trials (25%) in session 1 and decreased in session 3 (9%), with C6 being the highest frequency movement in the final session (17%).
Fig 4.
A, B: Time series plot of participants displaying exploration/exploitation pattern A (LP6) and B (NLP14) across technique assessment session 1, 2, and 3. Vertical dashed lines indicate the conclusion of each session. C, D: Time series plots of shared exploration/exploitation patterns C and D.
Fig 5.
Example of each demonstrated barbell trajectory from three individual learners.
Each barbell trajectory was defined by its relationship to the vertical reference line (Cunanan et al., 2020). Each barbell trajectory was normalised to 100 data points and plotted using the Y (horizontal), and Z (vertical) coordinates extracted from visual 3-D software. Type 2 trajectory was not exhibited by either condition.
Table 2.
The number of different movement patterns visited during three testing sessions and the number of movement patterns exploited between at least two consecutive trials.
Table 3.
Exploration/exploitation ratio for each participant for the NLP and LP conditions.