The transfer of movement sequences: Effects of decreased and increased load

Abstract

A number of recent experiments have demonstrated that a movement structure develops during the course of learning a movement sequence that provides the basis for transfer. After learning a movement sequence participants have been shown to be able to effectively produce the sequence when movement demands require that the sequence be rescaled in amplitude or produced with an unpractised set of effectors. The purpose of the present experiment was to determine whether participants, after learning a complex 16-element movement sequence with a 0.567-kg load, could also effectively produce the sequence when the load was decreased (0.0 kg) or increased (1.134 kg). The results indicated that participants were able to effectively compensate for decreased and increased load with virtually no changes in performance characteristics (displacement, velocity, acceleration, and pattern of element durations) while electromyographic (EMG) signals demonstrated that smaller (reduced load) or larger forces (increased load) were spontaneously generated to compensate for the change in load. The muscle activation patterns of the biceps and triceps as well as the level of coactivation appeared to be generally upscaled to generate and dissipate the changes in force requirement needed to compensate for the increased load.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bapi

R. S.

Doya

Harner

A. M.

(2000). Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research 132, 149–162.

Basmajian

J. V.

de Luca

C. J.

(1985). Muscles alive, their functions revealed by electromyography Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Brown

J. M. M.

Wickham

J. B.

McAndrew

D. J.

Huang

X.-F.

(in press). Muscles within muscles: Coordination of 19 muscle segments within three shoulder muscles during isometric motor tasks. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology.

Hikosaka

Nakahara

Rand

M. K.

Sakai

X. F.

Nakamura

(1999). Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neurosciences 22, 464–471.

Keele

S. W.

Jennings

Jones

Caulton

Cohen

(1995). On the modularity of sequence representation. Journal of Motor Behavior 27, 17–30.

Lamontagne

Richards

C. L.

Malouin

(2000). Coactivation during gait as an adaptive behavior after stroke. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 10, 407–415.

Lange

R. K.

Godde

Braun

(2004). EEG correlates of coordinate processing during intermanual transfer. Experimental Brain Research 159, 161–171.

Park

J. H.

Shea

C. H.

(2002). Effector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior 34, 253–270.

Park

J. H.

Shea

C. H.

(2005). Sequence learning: Response structure and effector transfer. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 387–419.

10.

Povel

Collard

(1982). Structural factors in patterned finger tapping. Acta Psychologica 52, 107–123.

11.

Rosenbaum

D. A.

Kenny

Derr

M. A.

(1983). Hierarchical control of rapid movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9, 86–102.

12.

Shea

C. H.

Park

J. H.

(2002). Detection and utilization of sequence information: Influence on response structure and effector transfer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 24, 112.

13.

Shea

C. H.

Wulf

(2005). Schema theory: Critical re-appraisal and re-evaluation. Journal of Motor Behavior 37, 85–101.

14.

Verwey

W. B.

(1994). Evidence for the development of concurrent processing in a sequential key pressing task. Acta Psychologica 85, 245–262.

15.

Verwey

W. B.

(2001). Concatenating familiar movement sequences: The versatile cognitive processor. Acta Psychologica 106, 69–95.

16.

Whitacre

Shea

C. H.

(2002). The role of practice variability in retention, parameter transfer, and effector transfer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 73, 47–57.

17.

Wilde

Shea

C. H.

(2006). Proportional and non-proportional transfer of movement sequences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59, 1626–1647.

18.

Willingham

D. B.

Wells

L. A.

Farrell

(2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition 28, 366–375.

19.

Wulf

Schmidt

R. A.

Deubel

(1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameter learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 1134–1150.