Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined two different cues that might be used in the reproduction of movement: (1) the initial position of the movement and (2) the terminal location of the movement. An experiment was designed to assess the relative importance of these two cues using the kinesthesia subtest of the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests with 48 college juniors A 2 × 2 factorial design was used One factor, speed of movement, had two levels, fast and slow, as did the other factor, angle of approach—altered approach or original approach. The dependent measures were distance error from the target and angle error. The results suggested that angle of approach was not an important variable in reproduction of movement. However, a significant effect (p<05) was found for speed of movement, indicating that fast movements caused a significantly larger error in direction than did slow movements These data imply that the terminal location of a movement is the more salient cue, independent of the extent or angle of the movement.

Keywords

kinesthesia Southern California Sensory Integration tests

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

J. A.

(1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150.

Ayres

A. J.

(1972). The Southern California Sensory Integration Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Fitch

Turvey

M. T.

(1978). On the control of activity: Some remarks from an ecological point of view. In Landers

Christina

(Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport. Urbana, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gliner

J. A.

(1983). Letter to the editor. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3, 124–125.

Henderson

Duncombe

(1982). Development of kinesthetic judgments of angle and distance. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 2, 131–144.

Kelso

J. A. S.

Holt

K. G.

Flatt

A. B.

(1980). The role of proprioception in the perception and control of human movement: Toward a theoretical assessment. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 45–52.

Kelso

J. A. S.

Stelmach

G. A.

(1976). Central and peripheral mechanisms in motor control. In Stelmach

G. A.

(Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press.

Laabs

G. J.

(1973). Retention characteristics of different reproduction cues in motor short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 168–177.

Marteniuk

R. G.

Roy

E. A.

(1972). The codability of kinesthetic location and distance in information. Acta Psychologica, 36, 471–479.

10.

Paillard

Massion

(1974). Motor aspects of behaviour and programmed nervous activities. Brain Research, 71, 191–575.

11.

Polit

Bizzi

(1978). Processes controlling arm movements in monkeys. Science, 210, 1235–1237.

12.

Russell

D. G.

(1976). Spatial location cues and movement production. In Stelmach

G. A.

(Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press.

13.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.

14.

Schmidt

R. A.

(1980). Past and future issues in motor programming. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 122–140.

15.

Schmidt

R. A.

Zelaznik

Hawkins

Frank

J. S.

Quinn

J. T.

Jr. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review, 86, 415–451.

16.

Walsch

W. D.

Russell

D. G.

Boustead

(1981). Memory for movement cues: Angle of approach, terminal location and distance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 7, 108–123.

The Effects of Movement Speed and Initial Position on Movement Reproduction Accuracy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References