Skip to main content
Log in

Practice effects on local and global dynamics of the ski-simulator task

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experiment examined the acquisition of the global and local dynamics of the changes in the total body center of mass–platform and inter-limb coordination motions over the course of practice (20, 30 s trials each day for 7 days) in the ski-simulator task. Four blocks of trials, representative of early, moderate, and extensive practice were analyzed through power spectrum and coherence analyses. The oscillation frequencies of the knee joints became tuned to that of the platform–performer system and there were changes due to practice in the lower inter-limb coordination dynamics independent of the center of mass and platform coordination pattern. Acquisition of global level dynamics occurs to achieve a stable task solution that can allow for degenerate frequency- and phase-locking of the mechanical degrees of freedom at both the local intra- and inter-limb levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Only the absolute phase relationships used as the lagging or leading variable made little difference to the results

References

  • Bernstein N (1967) The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthouze L, Lungarella M (2004) Motor skill acquisition under environmental perturbations: on the necessity of alternate freezing and freeing of degrees of freedom. Adapt Behav 12:47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JJ, Kelso JAS (1999) To switch or not to switch: Recruitment of degrees of freedom stabilizes biological coordination. J Motor Behav 31:126–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler RF, Clauser CE, McConville JT, Reynolds HM, Young JW (1975) Investigation of inertial properties of the human body (AMRL-R-74-137). Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

  • Edelman GM, Gally J (2001) Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. PNAS 98:13763–13768

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Enoka R (1988) Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Human Kinetics, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink PW, Kelso JAS, Jirsa VK, deGuzman G (2000) Recruitment of degrees of freedom stabilizes coordination. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:671–692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haken H, Kelso JAS, Bunz H (1985) A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biol Cybern 51:347–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haken H (1996) Principles of brain functioning. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan MI (1990) Motor learning and the degrees of freedom problem. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance 13: motor representation and control. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 796–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang N, Shinohara M, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2004). Learning multi-finger synergies: an uncontrolled manifold analysis. Exp Brain Res 157:336–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelso JAS (1995) Dynamic patterns. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Ko YG, Challis JH, Newell KM (2003). Learning to coordinate redundant degrees of freedom in a dynamic balance task. Hum Mov Sci 22:47–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Latash M (1996) The Bernstein problem: how does the central nervous system make its choices? In: Latash M, Turvey M (eds) Dexterity and its development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 277–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2002) Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30:26–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newell KM (1996) Change in movement and skill: learning, retention, and transfer. In: In: Latash M, Turvey M (eds) Dexterity and its development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 393–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell KM, Broderick MP, Deutsch KM, Slifkin AB (2003) Task goals and change in dynamical degrees of freedom with motor learning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:379–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newell KM, Vaillancourt DE (2001) Dimensional change in motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 20:695–715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman EL (1979) Levels of sensorimotor representation. J Math Psychol 20:91–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz J P, Schöner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schöner G (1995) Recent developments and problems in human movement science and their conceptual implications. Ecol Psychol 7:291–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schöner G (1989) Learning and recall in a dynamic theory of coordination patterns. Biol Cybern 62:39–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schöner G, Zanone PG, Kelso JAS (1992) Learning as change or coordination dynamics: theory and experiment. J Motor Behav 24:29–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Slifkin AB, Newell KM (1999) Noise, information transmission, and force variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:837–851

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turvey MT, Shaw R, Mace WM (1978) Issues in the theory of action: degrees of freedom, coordinative structures and coalitions. In: Requin J (ed) Attention and performance, vol VII. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 557–595

  • Vereijken B, van Emmerik REA, Bongaardt R, Beek WJ, Newell KM (1997) Changing coordinative structures in complex skill acquisition. Hum Mov Sci 16:823–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vereijken B, van Emmerik REA, Whiting HTA, Newell KM (1992) Free(z)ing degrees of freedom in skill acquisition. J Motor Behav 24:133–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanone PG, Kelso JAS (1992) Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:403–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zanone PG, Kelso JAS (1997) Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: Collective and component levels. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:1454–1480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. L. Hong.

Appendix

Appendix

Derivation of knee joint angles

The knee joint angles were derived from the positions of the joint centers in 3 dimensions as follows (subscripts denote axis, X = medio-lateral, Y = anterior-posterior, Z = superior-inferior):

$$ \begin{aligned} {\text{AB}}_{X} & {\text{ = Ankle}}_{X} {\text{ - Knee}}_{X} \\ {\text{AB}}_{Y} & {\text{ = Ankle}}_{Y} {\text{ - Knee}}_{Y} \\ {\text{AB}}_{Z} & {\text{ = Ankle}}_{Z} {\text{ - Knee}}_{Z} {\text{,}} \\ \end{aligned} $$
$$ \begin{aligned} {\text{AC}}_{X} & {\text{ = Hip}}_{X} {\text{ - Knee}}_{X} \\ {\text{AC}}_{Y} & {\text{ = Hip}}_{Y} {\text{ - Knee}}_{Y} \\ {\text{AC}}_{Z} & {\text{ = Hip}}_{Z} {\text{ - Knee}}_{Z} {\text{.}} \\ \end{aligned} $$

The dot products of each line were then obtained:

$$ \begin{aligned} {\text{product}}_{X} & {\text{ = AB}}_{X} {\text{ $ \times $ AB}}_{X} \\ {\text{product}}_{Y} & {\text{ = AB}}_{Y} {\text{ $ \times $ AB}}_{Y} \\ {\text{product}}_{Z} & {\text{ = AB}}_{Z} {\text{ $ \times $ AB}}_{Z} {\text{.}} \\ \end{aligned} $$

The knee angles were then determined as:

$$ a{\text{cos}}{\left( {\frac{{{\text{product}}_{X} {\text{ + product}}_{Y} {\text{ + product}}_{Z} }} {{{\sqrt {{\text{(AB}}_{X} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{ + AB}}_{Y} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{ + AB}}_{Z} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{)}}} }{\text{ $ \times $ }}{\sqrt {{\text{(AC}}_{X} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{ + AC}}_{Y} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{ + AC}}_{Z} ^{{\text{2}}} {\text{)}}} }}}} \right)}{\text{.}} $$

Coherence

Coherence analysis tests the similarity of two power spectra obtained from the FFT for any two sampled signals. The coherence, Cxy is computed as:

$$ Cxy(f) = \frac{{{\left| {Pxy(f)^{2} } \right|}}} {{Pxx(f)Pyy(f)}}, $$

Pxy represents the cross spectrum of signals x and y, while Pxx and Pyy represent the individual spectra for the aforementioned signals. The cross spectrum, Pxy is the fast Fourier transform of the cross-correlations between the two signals/time series, which transforms the cross-correlation values from the time domain to the frequency domain, with a coherence value (ranging from 0 to 1) assigned to each frequency bin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hong, S.L., Newell, K.M. Practice effects on local and global dynamics of the ski-simulator task. Exp Brain Res 169, 350–360 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0145-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0145-4

Keywords

Navigation