Chapter 11 Investigations on the Basis of the Generalized Motor Programme Hypothesis

Roth, Klaus

doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62561-3

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on motor skills like handwriting (Stelmach & Teulings, 1983) or handball (Roth, 1988) has shown that participants benefit more from advance information about what to do (e.g., writing the pattern hye or ynl or making an overarm throw or a wrist pass) than from information about the force or direction of these actions. These results have been explained with the notion of a motor schema (e.g., Schmidt, 1975) consisting of relatively abstract invariants and more variable, situationally defined parameter values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Programming tool-use actions.

Massen

Prinz

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When humans plan to execute a tool-use action, they can only specify the bodily movement parameters by taking into account the external target or goal of the tool-use action and the target-movement mapping implemented by the tool. In this study, the authors used the movement precuing method to investigate how people prepare for actions made with tools. More specifically, they asked whether people would be able to specify the spatial target and the target-movement mapping of the tool-use action independently of each other, and to what degree they would be able to prepare these components in advance. In 3 experiments, they precued either the target or the target-movement mapping of tool-use actions involving either a compatible or an incompatible target-movement mapping. Results indicate that participants benefit from partial advance information about the target-movement mapping, whereas no significant effects were found for precuing the spatial target of the action. These results occurred regardless of whether the target-movement mapping was compatible or incompatible and provide evidence for the notion that the target-movement mapping of a tool-use action is part of its cognitive representation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Programming tool-use actions.

Massen

Prinz

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The principles underlying parameter specification have been extensively investigated in human behavioral studies (for a review, see Rosenbaum, 1983), functional neuroimaging studies (e.g., Deiber, Iban˜ez, Sadato, & Hallett, 1996;Lee, Chang, & Roh, 1999), event-related brain potential (ERP) studies (for a review, see Leuthold, Sommer, & Ulrich, 2004), as well as in monkey neurophysiological studies (e.g., Kurata, 1994;Requin, Riehle, & Seal, 1993). However, at least to our knowledge, the issue of parameter specification in relation to action selection has only been addressed by a very few behavioral studies producing mixed results (Lee et al, 1987;Roth, 1988;Wright et al, 2001). In the present article, we therefore propose to use event-related potentials (ERPs) in addition to behavioral measures in an attempt to test whether motor preparation follows a fixed order of motor program selection followed by parameter specification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a more recent study addressing this issue, Wright and colleagues (2001; see also Roth, 1988) argued that generalized motor program (GMP) theory (Schmidt, 1975, 1976; for a review, see Shea & Wulf, 2005), a prominent theory of motor control, provides a firmer ground on which to base a test of the fixed‐order preparation hypothesis. This theory assumes that only a limited number of fixed action plans, which reflect invariant spatiotemporal action patterns, are stored in memory and that the actual action parameters are specified at a lower level (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are temporal response features prepared in fixed order? Inferences from movement‐related potentials

Leuthold

Jentzsch

2010

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a response precuing task, we investigated whether motor preparation of temporal response features follows a fixed order as implied by the generalized motor program (GMP) view. Relative timing and overall duration of sequential key presses were factorially manipulated. Precues either provided no information, provided partial information about relative or overall duration, or fully specified the response. Reaction time decreased with the amount of advance information, reflecting the reduction of response alternatives by the precue and influences on preparatory motor processes. The contingent negative variation (CNV) over the left but not the medial and right motor regions increased with the amount of advance information provided. The foreperiod lateralized readiness potential indicated hand-specific activation for the full precue condition only. These findings disagree with the assumption that a GMP's invariant and variable response features are prepared in fixed order.

show abstract

“…According to Duhem and Quine’s holism argument, instead of falsifying the models, each study helped to increase the specificity of the original model by adding new criteria that had been neglected originally. More specifically, regardless of the original movement examples, the VP model was generalized to all movement forms [ 253 ] and their acquisition for school purposes without experimental testing [ 254 , 255 , 256 ]. Generalization was performed, resulting in neglect of, for example, the biomechanics of forces that cause motion, the nonlinear properties of muscle contraction, and the forces enacted by multi-joint muscles in more complex movements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

Schöllhorn

Rizzi

Slapšinskaitė-Dackevičienė

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This critical review considers the epistemological and historical background of the theoretical construct of motor learning for a more differentiated understanding. More than simply reflecting critically on the models that are used to solve problems—whether they are applied in therapy, physical education, or training practice—this review seeks to respond constructively to the recent discussion caused by the replication crisis in life sciences. To this end, an in-depth review of contemporary motor learning approaches is provided, with a pragmatism-oriented clarification of the researcher’s intentions on fundamentals (what?), subjects (for whom?), time intervals (when?), and purpose (for what?). The complexity in which the processes of movement acquisition, learning, and refinement take place removes their predictable and linear character and therefore, from an applied point of view, invites a great deal of caution when trying to make generalization claims. Particularly when we attempt to understand and study these phenomena in unpredictable and dynamic contexts, it is recommended that scientists and practitioners seek to better understand the central role that the individual and their situatedness plays in the system. In this way, we will be closer to making a meaningful and authentic contribution to the advancement of knowledge, and not merely for the sake of renaming inventions.

show abstract

Chapter 11 Investigations on the Basis of the Generalized Motor Programme Hypothesis

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Programming tool-use actions.

Programming tool-use actions.

Are temporal response features prepared in fixed order? Inferences from movement‐related potentials

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About