Psychological Research

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 131–138 | Cite as

Searching for the minimal essential information for skilled perception and action

  • Bruce Abernethy
Article

Summary

A common concern for both cognitive/computational and ecological/dynamical models of human motor control is the isolation of the minimal essential information needed to support skilled perception and action. In perception isolating essential features of the optic flow field, which are reliably informative regarding the nature of current events, from nonessential features provides a valuable step towards understanding how the computational complexity of perceptual information processing may be reduced to manageable levels and how relatively direct linkages of low dimensionality may be established between information and control variables. Likewise, in the study of action, discrimination of the movement features that remain immutable (invariant?) across changes in task conditions from the variables that are situationally determined provides a principled insight into the structural framework upon which skilled movement is built. Controversy abounds, however, in the study of perception and action as to whether features isolated as informative and immutable are centrally represented (in the form of a template or program) or are rather directly picked up (in the case of perceptual variables) or are simply an emergent consequence of the underlying dynamics (in the case of action variables). In this paper some examples of putative minimal essential information sources in perception and action are provided, strategies for uncovering such sources are discussed, and attention is directed, with the use of some recent data collected on natural skills, to some systematic expert-novice differences in the utilization of essential information and control variables. Expert-novice differences are highlighted because of the insight they may provide regarding the nature of perceptual-motor skill acquisition.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abernethy, B. (1990a). Anticipation in squash: Differences in advance cue utilisation between expert and novice players. Journal of Sport Sciences, 8, 17–34.Google Scholar
  2. Abernethy, B. (1990b). Expertise, visual search and information pick-up in squash. Perception, 19, 63–77.Google Scholar
  3. Abernethy, B., & Burgess-Limerick, R. (1992). Visual support for the timing of skilled movements: A review. In J. J. Summers (Ed.), Approaches to the study of motor control and learning (pp. 343–384). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Abernethy, B. Neal, R. J., & Burgess-Limerick, R. J. (1992). Relative timing in gait kinematics. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  5. Abernethy, B., Neal, R. J., Moran, M. J., & Parker, A. W. (1990). Expert-novice differences in muscle activity during the golf swing. In A. J. Cochran (Ed.), Science and golf (pp. 54–60). London: E. & F. N. Spon.Google Scholar
  6. Abernethy, B., & Packer, S. (1989). Perceiving joint kinematics and segment interactions as a basis for skilled anticipation in squash. In C. K. Giam, K. K. Chook, & K. C. Teh (Eds), Proceedings 7th World Congress in Sport Psychology, Singapore, August, 1989 (pp. 56–58). Singapore: International Society of Sport Psychology.Google Scholar
  7. Abernethy, B., & Russell, D. G. (1987a). Expert-novice differences in an applied selective attention task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 326–345.Google Scholar
  8. Abernethy, B., & Russell, D. G. (1987b). The relationship between expertise and visual search strategy in a racquet sport. Human Movement Science, 6, 283–319.Google Scholar
  9. Abernethy, B., & Sparrow, W. A. (1992). The rise and fall of dominant paradigms in motor behaviour research. In J. J. Summers (Ed.), Approaches to the study of motor control and learning (pp. 3–45). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Armstrong, T. R. (1970). Training for the production of memorised movement patterns (Tech. Rep. No. 26). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Human Performance Center.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, N. (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bootsma, R. J. (1989). Accuracy of perceptual processes subserving different perception-action systems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41 A, 489–500.Google Scholar
  13. Burgess-Limerick, R. J. (1989). Perception-action coupling in the control of an interceptive movement. Unpublished Honours thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  14. Burgess-Limerick, R. J., Abernethy, B., & Limerick, B. (in press). Identification of underlying assumptions is an integral part of research: An example from motor control. Theory & Psychology.Google Scholar
  15. Burgess-Limerick, R., Neal, R. J., & Abernethy, B. (1992). Relative timing and phase angle invariance in stair-climbing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44 A, 705–722.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, T., & Cozzens, B. (1976). Human solutions for locomotion: the initiation of gait. In R. M. Herman, S. Grillner, P. S. G. Stein, & D. G. Stuart (Eds.), Neural control of locomotion (pp. 65–76). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Corcos, D. M., Agarwal, G. C., & Gottlieb, G. L. (1985). A note on accepting the null hypothesis: Problems with respect to the massspring and pulse-step models of motor control. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 481–487.Google Scholar
  18. Cutting, J. E. (1978). Generation of male and female synthetic walkers through manipulation of a biomechanical invariant. Perception, 7, 393–405.Google Scholar
  19. Cutting, J. E., Proffitt, D. R., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1978). A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 357–372.Google Scholar
  20. Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (1978). Skill acquisition: An event approach with special reference to searching for the optimum of a function of several variables. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 1–40). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gentner, D. R. (1987). Timing of skilled motor performance: Tests of the proportional duration model. Psychological Review, 94, 255–276.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Glencross, D. J., Whiting, H. T. A., & Abernethy, B. (in press). Motor control, motor learning and the acquisition of skill: Historical trends and future directions. International Journal of Sport Psychology.Google Scholar
  24. Heuer, H. (1988). Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comment on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review, 95, 552–557.Google Scholar
  25. Hofsten, C., von (1987). Catching. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 33–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Hollerbach, J. M. (1990). Planning of arm movements. In D. N. Osherson, S. K. Kosslyn, & J. M. Hollerbach (Eds.), Visual cognition and action, Vol. 2 (pp. 183–211). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Howarth, C., Walsh, W. D., Abernethy, B., & Snyder, C. W., Jr. (1984). A field examination of anticipation in squash. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16 (3), 6–10.Google Scholar
  28. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 201–211.Google Scholar
  29. Johansson, G. (1975) Visual motion perception. Scientific American, 232 (6), 76–88.Google Scholar
  30. Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.Google Scholar
  31. Kelso, J. A. S. (1986). Pattern formation in multi-degree of freedom speech and limb movements. Experimental Brain Research Supplement, 15, 105 -128.Google Scholar
  32. Kelso, J. A. S., Holt, K. G., Rubin, P., & Kugler, P. N. (1981). Patterns of human interlimb coordination emerge from the properties of nonlinear limit cycle oscillatory processes. Theory and data. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 226–261.Google Scholar
  33. Kelso, J. A. S., Vatikiotis-Bateson, E., Saltzman, E. L., & Kay, B. (1985). A qualitative dynamic analysis of reiterant speech production: Phase portraits, kinematics, and dynamic modelling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 266–280.Google Scholar
  34. Kugler, P. N. (1986). A morphological perspective on the origin and evolution of movement patterns. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 459–525). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  35. Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. A. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1982). On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 5–78). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Kugler, P. N., & Turvey, M. T. (1987). Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement: Theoretical and experimental investigations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459.Google Scholar
  38. Magill, R. A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  39. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  40. Meijer, O. G., & Roth, K. (Ed.) (1988). Complex movement behaviour: “The” motor-action controversy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  41. Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Neal, R. J., Abernethy, B., & Burgess-Limerick, R. (1990). Invariant features of human gait. In Proceedings of the Commonwealth and International Conference on Physical Education, Sport, Health, Dance, Recreation and Leisure, Vol. 3. Sports Science, Part 1, Auckland, January, 1990 (pp. 124–138).Google Scholar
  43. Neal, R. J., Abernethy, B., & Engstrom, C. (1991). Does the constant proportion test hold for gait?: Kinematic and electromyographic evidence. Paper presented at the XIIIth International Congress of Biomechanics, Perth. WA, December, 1991.Google Scholar
  44. Neal, R. J., Abernethy, B., Moran, M. J., & Parker, A. W. (1990). The influence of club length and shot distance on the temporal characteristics of the swings of expert and novice golfers. In A. J. Cochran (Ed.) Science and golf (pp. 36–42). London: E. & F. N. Spon.Google Scholar
  45. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitivepsychology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  46. Newell, K. M. (1985). Coordination, control and skill. In D. Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 295–317). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  47. Reed, E., Kugler, P. N., & Shaw, R. E. (1985). Work group on biology and physics. In W. H. Warren, Jr., & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change (pp. 307–345). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Roberton, M. A. (1986). Developmental changes in the relative timing of locomotion. In H. T. A. Whiting & M. G. Wade (Eds.), Themes in motor development (pp. 279–293). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  49. Schiff, W. (1965). Perception of impending collision: A study of visually directed avoidant behavior. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, Whole No. 604.Google Scholar
  50. Schmidt, R. A. (1980). Past and future issues in motor programming. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 122–140.Google Scholar
  51. Schmidt, R. A. (1985). The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 188–200.Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt, R. A. (1988a) Motor and action perspectives on motor behavior. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behavior: The “motor-action” controversy (pp. 3–44). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  53. Schmidt, R. A. (1988b). Motor learning and control: A behavioral emphasis (2nd, ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  54. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shapiro, D. C., Zernicke, R. F., Gregor, R. J., & Diestal, J. D. (1981). Evidence for generalised motor programs using gait pattern analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 33–47.Google Scholar
  56. Shaw, R. E., & Kinsella-Shaw, J. (1988). Ecological mechanics: A physical geometry for intentional constraints. Human Movement Science, 7, 155–200.Google Scholar
  57. Summers, J. J. (1977). The relationship between the sequencing and timing components of a skill. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 49–59.Google Scholar
  58. Terzuolo, C. A., & Viviani, P. (1979). Space-time invariance in learned motor skills. In G. E. Stelmach & J. E. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 522–533). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  59. Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (1986). The ecological approach to perceiving-acting: A pictorial essay. Acta Psychologica, 63, 133–155.Google Scholar
  60. Turvey, M. T., Carello, C., & Kim, N.-G. (1990). Links between active perception and the control of action. In H. Haken & M. Stadler (Eds.), Synergetics of cognition (pp. 269–295). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Turvey, M. T., Fitch, H. L., & Tuller, B. (1982). The Bernstein perspective III: The problem of degrees of freedom and context-conditioned variability. In J. A. S. Kelso (Ed.), Human motor behavior: An introduction (pp. 239–252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Warm, J. P., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1990). Evidence against the relative invariance of timing in handwriting. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42 A, 105–117.Google Scholar
  63. Warren, W. H., Jr. (1988). Action modes and laws of control for the visual guidance of action. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behaviour: The motor-action controversy (pp. 339–380). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  64. Warren, W. H., Jr. (1990). The perception-action coupling. In H. Bloch, & B.I. Bertenthal (Eds.), Sensory-motor organizations and development in infancy and early childhood (pp. 23–37). The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  65. Warren, W. H., Jr., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1985). Work group on perception and action. In W. H. Warren, Jr. & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change (pp. 269–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Warren, W. H., Jr., Young, D., & Lee, D. N. (1986). Visual control of step length during running over irregular terrain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 259–266.Google Scholar
  67. Welford, A. T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  68. Whiting, H. T. A. (1980). Dimensions of control in motor learning. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 537–550). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  69. Whiting, H. T. A. (Ed.) (1984). Human motor actions: Bernstein reassessed. Amsterdam:North-Holland.Google Scholar
  70. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Abernethy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human Movement StudiesThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations