Stelmach Motor Control

Issues and Trends
1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-1-4832-6889-7
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 242 Seiten

Motor Control: Issues and Trends discusses concepts, ideas and experimental data on issues and trends in motor control. The book contains the works of scientists who are doing research in the field of motor control. The contributed articles focus on such topics as central and peripheral mechanisms in motor control; theoretical approaches to the learning of motor skills; how the concept of attention can be used and applied to problems in the perception and production of movement; and motor task complexity. Psychologists, behaviorists, and neurophysiologists will find the book invaluable.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Stelmach, George E.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Motor Control: Issues and Trends;4
3;Copyright Page;5
4;Table of Contents;6
5;List of Contributors;8
6;Preface;10
7;Chapter 1. Central and Peripheral Mechanisms in Motor Control;12
7.1;I. Introduction;12
7.2;II. Peripheral Mechanisms
Underlying Movement Control;19
7.3;III. Central Mechanisms
Underlying Movement Control;31
7.4;IV. Concluding Comments;45
7.5;References;46
8;Chapter 2. The Schema as a Solution to Some Persistent Problems in Motor Learning Theory;52
8.1;I. Introduction;52
8.2;II. Limitations of Existing Theories;53
8.3;III. A Possible Solution: The Schema Theory;56
8.4;IV. Some Key Concerns Facing the Schema Theory;62
8.5;References;75
9;Chapter 3. Spatial Location Cues and
Movement Production;78
9.1;I. Introduction;78
9.2;II. Motor Control;79
9.3;III. Coding and the Availability
of Movement Cues;84
9.4;IV. Spatial Location and Movement Control;87
9.5;V. Evidence;90
9.6;VI. Implications;92
9.7;VII. Summary;93
9.8;References;94
10;Chapter 4. Issues for a Closed-Loop Theory of Motor Learning;98
10.1;I. Introduction;98
10.2;II. Review of Adams' Closed-Loop Theory of
Motor Learning;99
10.3;III. The Motor Program;103
10.4;IV. Schema;111
10.5;V. General Conclusions;116
10.6;References;116
11;Chapter 5. The Structure of Motor Programs;120
11.1;I. Introduction;120
11.2;II. The Motor Program Concept;121
11.3;III. Memory Structures of Motor Programs;138
11.4;IV. Summary;150
11.5;References;151
12;Chapter 6. Attention and Movement;154
12.1;I. Introduction;154
12.2;II. Attention;155
12.3;III. Perception of Movement;160
12.4;IV. Production of Movement;168
12.5;V. Conclusion;182
12.6;References;182
13;Chapter 7. Cognitive Information Processes in Motor Short-Term Memory and
Movement Production;186
13.1;I. Introduction;186
13.2;II. Coding Processes in
Motor Short-Term Memory;187
13.3;III. Movement Production: The Motor Schema;192
13.4;IV. Coding of Movement Infonnation:
A Two-Stage Process;195
13.5;References;196
14;Chapter 8. Proprioception as a Basis of Anticipatory
Timing Behavior;198
14.1;I. Introduction;198
14.2;IL Proprioceptive Trace Hypothesis;200
14.3;III. Proprioceptive Input Hypothesis;203
14.4;IV. Issues and Trends;207
14.5;References;209
15;Chapter 9. Dimensions of Motor Task Complexity;212
15.1;I. Introduction;212
15.2;II. Motor Programming and Response Complexity;213
15.3;III. Information Processing and Complexity;223
15.4;IV. Summary;235
15.5;References;236
16;Index;240

Leseproben

2 The Schema as a Solution to Some Persistent Problems in Motor Learning Theory
Richard A. Schmidt Publisher Summary
This chapter discusses the various theoretical approaches to the learning of motor skills. Some of the persistent problems for theory are discussed, and the Schmidt (1975a) schema theory is reviewed, showing how some of these problems can be handled with this approach. In open-loop theories or models of learning and performance, movement control is assumed to be regulated by a central program that determines all of the relevant spatial and temporal details of a motor act such as a baseball swing. A persistent problem that has faced theorists in motor control is how the individual can come to recognize his own errors and to produce corrections in subsequent responses. The schema theory postulates two separate states of memory, one for recall and one for recognition, as Adams’ theory had done. The specific roles of recall and recognition memory depend slightly upon the type of task, but basically recall that memory is the state responsible for the generation of impulses to the musculature that carry out movement or movement corrections, while recognition memory is the state responsible for evaluation of response-produced feedback that makes the generation of error information possible about the movement. I Introduction II Limitations of Existing Theories A The Storage Problem B The Novelty Problem C The Detection of Errors III A Possible Solution: The Schema Theory A The Schema Defined B The Schema and Learning C The Schema and the Storage-Novelty Problems D The Schema and Error Detection IV Some Key Concerns Facing the Schema Theory A Evidence for the Motor Schema B Some Problems with the Motor Program Concept C The Role of Efference Copy References I Introduction
Over the past decades of research in motor behavior, there has been an increasing trend, as described by Pew (1974), away from a “task-oriented approach” toward a “process-oriented approach” to various problems in motor performance and learning. Earlier work focused primarily on the effect of various experimental variables on the performance of rather “global” motor responses (e.g., the effects of massed practice on the learning and performance of the pursuit rotor task), whereas recently there seems to be a shift in emphasis toward understanding the kinds of changes that occur in humans as they perform and learn. This recent concern has led to the creation of various models and theories that attempt to explain performance data through the postulation of various hypothetical mechanisms or processes. The work of Adams (1971), Anokhin (1969), Bernstein (translated in 1967), Konorski (1967), Laszlo and Bairstow (1971), Pew (1974), and Sokolov (1969) are representative of this kind of thinking about motor skills. This trend has been important because it has stimulated a great deal of research and thinking about motor behavior that was not present in earlier traditions, and the area has become very interesting because of the competition among the various explanations of motor performance. This paper is concerned with the various theoretical approaches to the learning of motor skills. Some of the persistent problems for theory are discussed, and the Schmidt (1975a) schema theory is summarized, showing how some of these problems can be handled with this approach. Finally, some pressing concerns for future research and theorizing are presented. II Limitations of Existing Theories
A The Storage Problem
In open-loop theories (or models) of learning and performance, movement control is assumed to be regulated by a central program that determines all of the relevant spatial and temporal details of a motor act such as a baseball swing (e.g., Henry and Rogers, 1960; Lashley, 1917). While open-loop theorists do not explicitly say so, there is the implication that for every response a subject makes, there is a separate motor program that controls it. The number of such programs for motor responding must be very large indeed when we consider the number of speeds that the person can move, the number of starting positions and environmental states that can exist prior to the response, and the number of spatial patterns that the response can take. The number of such programs has been estimated for speech production by MacNeilage and MacNeilage (1973); consid-ering only English and the possible accents and inflections, there are approximately 100,000 different phonemes (sounds), each presumably requiring a separate program for its production. This presents a difficult theoretical problem in explaining how the CNS can store this many programs. While it is true that the neurological networks are extremely complex, and it is also true that there is no good evidence that this many programs cannot be stored, the storage problem has led many motor behaviorists away from the one-to-one motor program idea because it represents a rather unparsimonious approach to understanding human responding. Postulating closed-loop systems, with the roles of feedback, error detection, and error correction strongly emphasized, does not solve the problem. If it is true (as Adams says in this volume; see Chapter 4) that movements are controlled via feedback and the reduction of error, there must be a reference of correctness against which each of the movements must be compared. Again considering the number of possible movements, this implies that there must be as many references of correctness with which response-produced feedback is compared as there are movements, leading again to the storage problem. B The Novelty Problem
This problem is related to the storage problem discussed above, but the concern here is production of novel movements. During a game, the basketball player performs a shot from the floor that has a combination of starting body position, goal distance, and environmental situation (position of other players, etc.) that, strictly speaking, he has never experienced previously, and thus the movement can be considered “novel.” Bartlett recognized the novelty problem (although he did not call it that) when he discussed the movements involved in tennis: When I make the stroke I do not, as a matter of fact, produce something absolutely new, and I never merely repeat something old [Bartlett, 1932, p. 202]. Thus, although a given tennis stroke might appear to be identical to other strokes made previously, it is always somewhat different because of the particular situation under which it is to be performed. At the same time, it is not totally novel, being strongly related to other, similar movements made previously. There is little evidence concerning such novel movements, and some critics would argue that learning a tennis stroke would involve the learning of a limited number of motor programs (open-loop theory) or a limited number of references of correctness (closed-loop theory) with the player choosing the proper program or reference depending upon the particular circumstances; thus the resulting movement would not be novel at all. However, investigations using cinematography for analysis of movement (e.g., Higgins and Spaeth, 1972) have shown that movements performed under apparently identical environmental conditions result in slightly different movement patterns, and that two apparently identical movements are not exactly alike in the pattern of output. The theoretical problem that the novelty problem raises is that if performers can produce movements that have never been exactly performed previously, where do the references of correctness or motor programs come from? One cannot argue that they come from previous practice of the movement, because that particular movement has not been practiced before, and neither can one profitably argue that they are genetically determined. This presents a difficult problem that has not been considered in the development of theories of motor control. C The Detection of Errors
A third persistent problem that has faced theorists in motor control is how the individual can come to recognize his own errors and to produce corrections in subsequent responses. The most popular approach has been the adoption of closed-loop theory, in which response-produced feedback is compared against a reference of correctness to generate an error, and the error is the stimulus for subsequent corrections, a solution adopted by Adams (1971), Pew (1974), and Sokolov (1969). With the exception of Adams’ (1971) position, however, in each of these theories the commands for action are...