All participants will be part of the same group and their performance after treatment will be compared to their own performance prior to treatment (baseline)

The treatment phase have 3 timepoints, 1 the patient is asked to perform an ADL alone, 2. Video feedback is administrated. This requires the participant to watch its own videotaped performance with the therapist while the therapist encourage the participant to identify errors, areas of strength, and to suggest strategies to solve errors in future sessions. 3. feedback online will be provided by the therapist on participant performance. The therapist will wait for the patient to detect and correct their error spontaneously. If the patient does not detect it, the therapist provides unspecified/specific help. This strategy is based on previous work (Schmidt, et al 2013, Ownstorth et al. 2010). The novelty of our procedure is the inclusion of distracting and conflicting/problem solving situations to be inhibited, detected and solved. Feedback will focus on these situations. The level of monitoring requirements will be adjusted to participants performance using a changing criterion design.

Target errors will be coded based on the criteria developed by Humphreys and Forde (2002). Distractor errors will be considered whenever an action is directed to a non-target object. Finally, conflicting errors will be considered whenever a conflicting situation is not detected and/or solved correctly. The authors expect to find a significant reduction on the number of errors of every category (target errors, distractor errors and conflicting errors) committed on post-training performance of trained tasks compared to baseline measures of these tasks.

The authors will codify errors as old/new, depending on whether they were already asdressed or not during the training sessions. The authors expect a reduced rate of old compared to new ones at the post-training phase.

The authors expect to find a significant reduction on the number of errors of every type (target, distractor and conflicting errors) committed at post-training performance compared to baseline even when presenting new distractors and conflicting situations that were never encountered during the training sessions. This outcome will constitute a test of near transfer.

The authors expect to find a significant reduction on the number of errors o every type committed at post-training performance compared to performance at baseline, even in a task that was not trained. This outcome will constitute a test of far transfer

Before performing every ADL task , the researcher will ask participants to evaluate how well they think they will perform (i.e. to predict the number of errors). This estimation will be compared with actual performance (number of errors committed). The difference between these two measures will constitute a measure of anticipatory awareness discrepancy, that could be positive (overestimation) or negative (underestimation). The authors expect that discrepancy in anticipatory awareness will be reduced after training compared to measures at baseline.

The DASS-21, is a well-established instrument to measure symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress in both clinical and non-clinical samples of adults. It includes a total of 21 items, 7 items per subscale: depression, anxiety and stress. Patients are asked to score every item on a scale from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much). Sum scores are computed by adding up the scores on the items per (sub)scale and multiplying them by a factor 2. Sum scores for the total DASS-total scale thus range between 0 and 120, and those for each of the subscales may range between 0 and 42. Cut-off scores of 60 and 21 are used for the total DASS score and for the depression subscale respectively. The scale will be administrated to patients pre and post intervention in order to asses changes in emotional distress due to training. Based on previous research using similar feedback training methodology with ADL no changes are expected.