Embodied planning in climbing: how pre-planning informs motor execution

Abstract

IntroductionThe aim of the study is to address embodied planning in climbing. Embodied planning was conceptualized as the interaction between perceptual-cognitive pre-planning and motor execution.MethodsIn an experimental study, 18 climbers were asked to pre-plan a climbing route and to perform the route afterward. During pre-planning, the visual search pattern of climbers was captured using a portable eye tracker. After previewing, they were invited to climb the wall.ResultsResults revealed that holds looked at during pre-planning were used twice as much during route execution than those not looked at. The duration of fixations was longer for holds used than those not used during route execution. The experience of climbers (training years) correlated with visual strategies and climbing performance, such that experienced participants climbed faster and fixated at the holds not used for a shorter time.DiscussionThe visual behaviors of climbers were influenced by their past sensorimotor experiences during route previewing, impacting subsequent climbing performance.

Less-is-More and Embodiment – How the Body Simplifies Cognition

“…A classic example is that individuals, based on their leg-length or strength, perceive steps on a staircase as 'steppable' or not (Konczak et al, 1992;Warren, 1984). This use of bodily constraints to constrain action possibilities is similarly reflected in athletes such as climbers who consider options and adjust the complexity of their actions based on their ability to perform a climb (Seifert et al, 2021;Luis del Campo et al, 2024).…”

The interplay between motor cost and self-efficacy related to walking across terrain in gaze and walking decisions

“…From an embodied cognition (or choice) perspective, a person perceives action possibilities (or affordances) given the environment and their action capability such that actions and their constraints directly influence decisions (Fajen 2007;Lepora and Pezzulo 2015;Luis-del Campo et al 2024;van Knobelsdorff et al 2020). In our path choice example, this implies that someone is less likely to choose a path in which they do not believe capable of crossing without consequence, like when wearing running shoes and presented with icy terrain on a downward slope.…”