FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2783633468> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2783633468 endingPage "vii" @default.
• W2783633468 startingPage "Pi" @default.
• W2783633468 abstract "Introduction: Motor learning research aims to investigate the temporary and long-term effects of experience and practice on motor skills. Traditionally, motor learning research paradigm (Kuhn, 1996) has been constrained by the concept of learning from cognitive psychology, which learning is defined as relatively permanent changes in behavior resulting from experience of interactions between individual and environment. Thus, manipulations of behavioral experience were emphasized in experimental design, for example, practice scheduling and feedback implementation. Some findings, such as practice variability and limited amount of feedback were found to be beneficial for motor learning, and have been made to contribute practical implications in teaching, training and rehabilitation. Although manipulation of behavioral experience in motor learning research may bring objective conclusion, it may neglect individual factors, when organism is serving as participant. From the view-point of research method, we argued that hard science with its intact design is mainly for the non-organism. The basic assumption is dose and responses are equal. Yet, this assumption may not be acceptable in applying to behavior of organism. Relative high variability has been identified in behavior related studies, which cause gap with hard science (Hedges, 1987). The gap is originated from the diversity in specific condition and unique nature of individual. Human factors can be used to describe the individual differences found in human behavior. Therefore, the diversity cannot be neglected or even be assumed for constant. We proposed that psychological and perceptual postulates are the underlying human factors in affecting motor learning. Postulate I: Effects of Psychological Variables on Behavioral Response: In studying the effect of feedback on motor learning, Janelle, Kim, and Singer (1995) began to tackle the issue of self-control. In their study, participants chose feedback upon needs, instead of experimenters. This study found active involvement oriented self-controlled feedback is a learning variable. Thereafter, self-controlled practice was also indicated as a learning variable (Wulf, 2007). Up to this point, self-determination theory characterized by autonomy has been served as theoretical basis for facilitation in motor learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Based on the psychological variables, such as intrinsic motivation, attentional focus, and expectancy in the process of practice, Wulf and Lewthwaite (2016) proposed OPTIMAL (optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning) theory. The OPTIMAL theory is to explain and predict the expectancy (Badami, VaezMousavi, Wulf, & Namazizadeh, 2012; Saemi, Porter, Ghotbi-Varzaneh, Zarghami, & Maleki, 2012), and external attentional focus are considered as learning variables (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015). Recently, Wulf, Lewthwaite, Cardozo, and Chiviacowsky (2017) suggested that the interaction of learner's expectancy, external attentional focus and autonomy would facilitate motor learning. Optimization of performance in the course of practice would also be beneficial to motor learning. Postulate II: Heterogeneous Effects of Perception and Action: To ensure the control variable in scientific experiment, same treatment needs to be applied to the participants in experimental group. Although homogenous effect was tested, it is unclear whether individual perception to the treatment remains to be the same. There are multiple factors that affect perception. For instance, internal factors, including individual-based skill level and experience, and external factors, such as height, weight, limb size, muscular strength, and flexibility would influence the perception. Therefore, under strict experimental control in terms of consistent treatment, unequal individual perception would play a critical role in generating the nonexperiment induced equivocal results. In the end, variations can be found in duplication of experiment, and even worse experimental results may mislead the meaning. Regarding to the motor learning behavioral response, experimental manipulation should refrain from the single dimension of physical consistency. For example, metric scale of the same equipment is often utilized in experiment. On the other hand, equipment should be adapted to be appropriate for individual needs to reach relative consistency (Warren, 1984). This body-scaled ratio consideration would reflect true result from the experimental manipulation (e.g., Chang, 2011; Chang, Wade, & Stoffregen, 2009; Mark, 1987; Peng, Jwo, & Yang, 2009; Warren & Whang, 1987). Motor output in behavioral response has been frequently measured as dependent variable to infer the effect of experimental treatment in motor learning research. However, the outcome is unknown if the experimental task is inappropriate for participant. In catching ball study, Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, and Dolné (1996) showed that determinants of catching judgment are not only flight distance and location, but also capabilities of mobility and catching. This is so called action-scaled ratio (Warren, 1984). Performance truly represents individual capability and/or skill can only be observed when task demand and actor's capability are matched. Therefore, the effect of experimental treatment on behavioral response can be examined (e.g., Huang, Jwo, Chen, & Yang, 2014; Konczak, Meeuwsen, & Cress, 1992; Meeuwsen, 1991). Conclusion: Unique individual is the participant in studying of motor learning and behavioral response. Psychological variables and adaptive regulations through perception of participant could play critical roles in influencing the research outcome. Stable and single experimental manipulation, although offers absolute constant context, its inflexible condition would elicit unnecessary regulation. Therefore, consideration of variables in human factors for relative consistency needs to be taken to acquire true effect of experimental treatment in motor learning research." @default.
• W2783633468 created "2018-01-26" @default.
• W2783633468 creator A5064675263 @default.
• W2783633468 date "2017-03-31" @default.
• W2783633468 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2783633468 title "New Window for Motor Learning Research: Variables in Human Factors" @default.
• W2783633468 doi "https://doi.org/10.5297/ser.1901.editorial" @default.
• W2783633468 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2783633468 type Work @default.
• W2783633468 sameAs 2783633468 @default.
• W2783633468 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2783633468 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2783633468 hasAuthorship W2783633468A5064675263 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C107690735 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C137858568 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C169976356 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C188255311 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C2776289891 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C2781316041 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C2988899074 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C5570062 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C107690735 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C118552586 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C137858568 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C138496976 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C144024400 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C151730666 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C15744967 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C169760540 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C169900460 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C169976356 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C180747234 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C188147891 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C188255311 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C19165224 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C26760741 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C2776289891 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C2781316041 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C2988899074 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C542102704 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C5570062 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C77805123 @default.
• W2783633468 hasConceptScore W2783633468C86803240 @default.
• W2783633468 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2783633468 hasLocation W27836334681 @default.
• W2783633468 hasOpenAccess W2783633468 @default.
• W2783633468 hasPrimaryLocation W27836334681 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W1969838777 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W1975939072 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W1992096192 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2022702410 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2066748644 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2125460170 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2407555063 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2912201061 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W2969504452 @default.
• W2783633468 hasRelatedWork W62061925 @default.
• W2783633468 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2783633468 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2783633468 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2783633468 magId "2783633468" @default.
• W2783633468 workType "article" @default.