Literature DB >> 28865313

Autonomy facilitates repeated maximum force productions.

Takehiro Iwatsuki1, Reza Abdollahipour2, Rudolf Psotta2, Rebecca Lewthwaite3, Gabriele Wulf4.   

Abstract

Performer autonomy (or self-control) has consistently been shown to enhance motor learning, and it can also provide immediate benefits for motor performance. Autonomy is also a key variable in the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). It is assumed to contribute to enhanced expectancies and goal-action coupling, affecting performance effectiveness and efficiency. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether providing autonomy support by giving performers choices would enhance their ability to maintain maximum force levels. Participants were asked to repeatedly produce maximum forces using a hand dynamometer. After 2 initial trials with the dominant and non-dominant hand, stratified randomization was used to assign participants with the same average maximum force to one of two groups, choice or yoked control groups. Choice group participants were able to choose the order of hands (dominant, non-dominant) on the remaining trials (3 per hand). For control group participants, hand order was determined by choice-group counterparts. Maximum forces decreased significantly across trials in the control group, whereas choice group participants were able to maintain the maximum forces produced on the first trial. We interpret these findings as evidence that performer autonomy promotes movement efficiency. The results are in line with the view that autonomy facilitates the coupling of goals and actions (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Choice; Hand-grip dynamometer; Self-control

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28865313     DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2017.08.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mov Sci        ISSN: 0167-9457            Impact factor:   2.161


  6 in total

1.  More bang for the buck: autonomy support increases muscular efficiency.

Authors:  Takehiro Iwatsuki; Hui-Ting Shih; Reza Abdollahipour; Gabriele Wulf
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-09-12

2.  Exercising choice over feedback schedules during practice is not advantageous for motor learning.

Authors:  Laura St Germain; Brad McKay; Andrew Poskus; Allison Williams; Olena Leshchyshen; Sherry Feldman; Joshua G A Cashaback; Michael J Carter
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-09-26

3.  A comparison between predetermined and self-selected approaches in resistance training: effects on power performance and psychological outcomes among elite youth athletes.

Authors:  Kevin Watson; Israel Halperin; Joan Aguilera-Castells; Antonio Dello Iacono
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Providing choice of feedback affects perceived choice but does not affect performance.

Authors:  Gal Ziv; Ronnie Lidor; Oron Levin
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.061

5.  The effects of combining focus of attention and autonomy support on shot accuracy in the penalty kick.

Authors:  Hubert Makaruk; Jared Marak Porter; Jerzy Sadowski; Anna Bodasińska; Janusz Zieliński; Tomasz Niźnikowski; Andrzej Mastalerz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Dignity neuroscience: universal rights are rooted in human brain science.

Authors:  Tara L White; Meghan A Gonsalves
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 6.499

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.