References of "Perceptual & Motor Skills"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThrowing skills: Analysis of movement phases in early motor learning
Ghorbani, Saeed; Bund, Andreas UL

in Perceptual & Motor Skills (2017), 124(1), 1-12

Traditionally, motor learning scientists have evaluated the process of learning a new motor skill by considering the skill as a whole. Yet, motor skills comprises various phases, and in the motor learning ... [more ▼]

Traditionally, motor learning scientists have evaluated the process of learning a new motor skill by considering the skill as a whole. Yet, motor skills comprises various phases, and in the motor learning literature, it is not clear whether new learner show similar or different learning across various phases. We provide exploratory data on learning movement phases by novices, using baseball pitching as the learning task. Eight participants (four male, four female, M age ¼ 23.7 years, SD ¼ 2.4) performed five trials each in the pretest followed by three blocks of 10 trials each in the acquisition phase. Finally, two retention tests of five trials were conducted by each participant 10 minutes and 7 days after the last acquisition block, respectively. Intraand interlimb coordination of upper and lower body segments were measured as dependent variables. We found significant differences between the stride phase and the other phases at pretest, during the acquisition phase, and on both retention tests across all kinematic variables. Participants experienced more trouble coordinating the stride phase than the other phases of pitching, perhaps because the stride phase is the only phase in which the participants had to move their upper and lower body parts simultaneously. We discuss implications for motor learning generally. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 127 (3 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailTime perception, estimation paradigm, and temporal relevance.
Klapproth, Florian UL

in Perceptual & Motor Skills (2007), 104

52 women and 20 men (M age = 25.3 yr., SD = 4.1) reproduced one of three durations (15, 30, and 45 sec.) of a uniform visual stimulus in either a prospective or a retrospective estimation paradigm. In ... [more ▼]

52 women and 20 men (M age = 25.3 yr., SD = 4.1) reproduced one of three durations (15, 30, and 45 sec.) of a uniform visual stimulus in either a prospective or a retrospective estimation paradigm. In contrast to the prospective conditions, the participants in the retrospective conditions did not know that time estimation would be required subsequently. However, temporal relevance in the retrospective conditions was raised explicitly by instructing the participants to wait for the termination of a visual stimulus and to press a button immediately after the stimulus had disappeared. The results contrasted with most findings of comparisons between prospective and retrospective duration judgments: there were no differences between the conditions regarding their mean estimates. However, intersubject variability of temporal judgments was higher in the retrospective conditions than in the prospective conditions. The results were interpreted within the framework of attentional models of temporal information processing. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (2 UL)