Literature DB >> 8817279

The spatiotemporal structure of control variables during catching.

R C Polman1, H T Whiting, G J Savelsbergh.   

Abstract

The discrepancy between traditional (force scaling models) and the more recently conceived dynamic explanations of load compensation (lambda model) was the departure point for the present study. By using the complex "open" motor skill of catching a ball--rather than the traditional "closed" skills--under "normal" (baseline) conditions and under conditions where a spring load was applied to the catching hand (thereby changing the dynamics of the skeletomuscular system) it was hoped to provide further clarification of this issue. Traditional force scaling models, in this respect, would predict that maximal closing velocity of the grasp action, and movement time would not be significantly different between a control and a spring-load condition. In contrast, a dynamic system perspective would maintain that spring loading would be compensated for by a change in the rate of shift of the reciprocal command (R-command). The obtained results showed a significant difference for conditions with regard to the maximal closing velocity of the grasp action, the baseline condition being higher than the two spring-load conditions. Furthermore, a significant difference was found for the aperture at moment of catch, the aperture at moment of catch being smaller in the baseline condition than that under the two spring-load conditions. With regard to the temporal variables, no significant differences were obtained. A comprehensive overall explanation of the obtained data in terms of the force scaling models was not realisable. It may be that findings supporting such theories are task specific and that for constrained tasks--such as catching a ball--different underlying organisational principles apply. The lambda model, however, could explain adequately the obtained results. It was concluded that, except for the preparatory phase associated with load compensation before the onset of the movement of the ball, the spatiotemporal structure of the control pattern underlying catching remains the same (invariant) in both baseline and load conditions. Thereby, the spatiotemporal structure of the resulting movement changes under the influence of the load and thus is not the same for load and baseline condition.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8817279     DOI: 10.1007/bf00229633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  26 in total

1.  Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis (lambda model) for motor control.

Authors:  A G Feldman
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 1.328

2.  Rapid movements with reversals in direction. II. Control of movement amplitude and inertial load.

Authors:  D E Sherwood; R A Schmidt; C B Walter
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Goal-directed arm movements in absence of visual guidance: evidence for amplitude rather than position control.

Authors:  O Bock; R Eckmiller
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The trajectory of human wrist movements.

Authors:  R B Stein; F W Cody; C Capaday
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Neural dynamics of planned arm movements: emergent invariants and speed-accuracy properties during trajectory formation.

Authors:  D Bullock; S Grossberg
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Motor learning and control: a working hypothesis.

Authors:  J V Basmajian
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Mechanisms underlying achievement of final head position.

Authors:  E Bizzi; A Polit; P Morasso
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Coordination of arm and wrist motion during a reaching task.

Authors:  F Lacquaniti; J F Soechting
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Some factors pertinent to the organization and control of arm movements.

Authors:  F Lacquaniti; J F Soechting; C A Terzuolo
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1982-12-09       Impact factor: 3.252

10.  Load compensation in human goal-directed arm movements.

Authors:  O Bock
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1990-12-21       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  1 in total

1.  To know or not to know: influence of explicit advance knowledge of occlusion on interceptive actions.

Authors:  Pieter Tijtgat; Simon J Bennett; Geert J P Savelsbergh; Dirk De Clercq; Matthieu Lenoir
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 1.972

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.