Degree of Preference and Its Influence on Motor Control When Reaching for Most Preferred,Neutrally Preferred,and Least Preferred Candy

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether reaching for objects with varying levels of preference associated with them elicited influenced motor control in a reaching task. Forty healthy adults were asked to reach for seven different types of candy, which they ranked by personal preference from being the most preferred to the least preferred. In this repeated measures design, data were analyzed on 39 participants who tended to demonstrate greater movement efficiency in movement time and movement units when reaching for candy in which they associated with greater preference (p < .0167). Although no differences were found between conditions with peak velocity and percentage of movement time to peak velocity (p > .0167), these dependent variables appeared to trend in the direction of similar movement efficiency. Therapists can use this knowledge to help guide clinical reasoning when designing treatment plans and approaches. Future research is needed to further examine intensity along the continuum of preference and its implications for occupational therapy practice.

Keywords

occupational therapy motor skills behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Fitts

P. M.

Deininger

R. L.

(1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492.

Fuller

H. M.

Thomas

J. J.

Rice

M. S.

(2006). Perceived risk: Effects on reaching and placing performance in persons with cerebrovascular accident. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 379-387.

Hartman

B. A.

Miller

B. K.

Nelson

D. L.

(2000). The effects of hands-on occupation versus demonstration on children’s recall memory. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 477-483.

Holubar

M. N.

Rice

M. S.

(2006). The effects of contextual relevance and ownership on a reaching and placing task. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 53, 35-42. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00538.x

Kielhofner

(2006). Developing and evaluating quantitative data collection instruments. In Kielhofner

(Ed.), Research in occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice (pp. 155-176). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.

Kircher

M. A.

(1984). Motivation as a factor of perceived exertion in purposeful versus nonpurposeful activity. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 38, 165-170.

LaMore

K. L.

Nelson

D. L.

(1993). The effects of options on performance of an art project in adults with mental disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 397-401.

10.

Lough

C. L.

Rice

M. S.

Lough

L. G.

(2012). Choice as a strategy to enhance engagement in a coloring task in children with autism spectrum disorders. Occupational Therapy International, 19, 204-211. doi:10.1002/oti.1337

11.

Marteniuk

R. G.

MacKenzie

C. L.

Jeannerod

Athenes

Dugas

(1987). Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 365-378.

12.

Murphy

Trombly

Tickle-Degnen

Jacobs

(1999). The effect of keeping an end-product on intrinsic motivation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 153-158.

13.

Nelson

D. L.

Thomas

J. J.

(2003). Occupational form, occupational performance, and a conceptual framework for therapeutic occupation. In Kramer

Hinojosa

Royeen

(Eds.), Perceptions on human occupation: Participation in life (pp. 87-155), Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams, & Williams.

14.

Rice

M. S.

Davies

D. M.

Maitra

(2009). Immediate versus prolonged visual exposure and object relevancy in a reaching and placing task. Al Ameen Journal of Medical Sciences, 2, 22-35.

15.

Rice

M. S.

Renock

L. A.

(2006). Personal preference and quality of reach in healthy adult women. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 577-586.

16.

Rice

M. S.

Thomas

J. J.

(2000). Perceived risk as a constraint on occupational performance during hot and cold water pouring. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 525-532.

17.

Sietsema

J. M.

Nelson

D. L.

Mulder

R. M.

Mervau-Scheidel

White

B. E.

(1993). The use of a game to promote arm reach in persons with traumatic brain injury. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 19-24.

18.

Thomas

J. J.

Rice

M. S.

(2002). Perceived risk and its effects on quality of movement in occupational performance of well-elderly individuals. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 22, 104-110.

19.

Trombly

C. A.

Lin

(1994). The relationship between occupational form and occupational performance: A kinematic perspective. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 679-687.

20.

Wong

Lin

Chen

(2001). Effects of task goal and personal preference on seated reaching kinematics after stroke. Stroke, 32, 70-76.