Presentation on theme: "Throwing Kinematics and Children’s Abilities in the Imaginary Ball Situation By Peter Capucilli Under the direction of John J. Rieser, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:
Throwing Kinematics and Children’s Abilities in the Imaginary Ball Situation By Peter Capucilli Under the direction of John J. Rieser, Ph.D.
Introduction Preliminary study by Rieser et al. (2005) Children (3-5 years old) illustrated a difference in throwing technique when throwing a tangible ball versus throwing a pretend ball.
Our Goals To understand how children throw in the imaginary situation? Determine age at which children adjust throwing technique to correctly account for altered distances? Determine factors that might contribute?
The Broader Picture Theoretical Implications Future understanding of neurological process in imaginary throwing. Understanding a greater piece of children’s development. Practical Implications Training Rehabilitation/Conditioning
Past Research Preliminary Study - Rieser et al. (2005) Lillard (1998) - Young children lack understanding of the connection between cognitive understanding and physical representation in pretence Mah, Ferdinaldo & Mussa-Ivaldi (2003) - Mapping of learned kinematic motions only occurs on tasks requiring same technique
Pilot Testing Blind Feedback TestHolding Ball Test
What we realized… Our initial plans were not the best of plans…
Blocking For Distance Three consecutive throws on a single target. Targets move in increasing order from shortest distance to furthest distance.
Original Hypothesis 3-4 year olds: Real Ball - Succeed Pretend Ball - Fail (to illustrate adult-like change in throwing kinematics) 5-7 year olds: Real Ball - Succeed Pretend Ball - Some succeed, some fail Adults: Real Ball - Succeed Pretend Ball - Succeed
Study 1 Total (n=24) participants. Regular developing. 3.9-22.4 years of age Equal number of males and females evaluated. 4 distinct distances (Blocked) Three trials per distance
Variables Throw Distances - Children (1m, 3m 5m, 10m) (Blocked) - Adults (1m, 7m, 15m, 40m) Trial Number - 3 throws at each target (Blocked) Throw Condition - Real/Pretend - Pretend/Real Dependent Variables Actual Distance Thrown # of throw strategies used Independent Variables Age - Children (3-4), Children (4-7), Adults (18+)
Study 2 Verbal Study (n=11) Children participants, (n=8) Adult participants Four Questions: Which distance was the hardest and which distance was the easiest to throw/pretend to throw to in each condition. Independent Variable: Questions Dependent Variable: Children’s and Adult’s answers Mean averages coded Results did not prove significant to study
Results Statistical Tests conducted using SPSS and Excel: Two Way Analysis of Variance (repeated measures on variables, within subjects), T-tests Did Target Distance exert significant effect on Throw Distance? MAIN EFFECT FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS Did Trial Number exert significant effect on Throw Distances? MAIN EFFECT ONLY IN YOUNG CHILDREN
Results cont. Coded Videotapes using “Pretend Throwing Kinematics Scoring Guide” 3-4 Year Olds (5/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities) 5-7 Year Olds (8/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities) Adults (8/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities) *Ratios based on participants ability to illustrate adult-like capabilities at least once Total # of changes across intervals also calculated
Discussion Key Findings Both young and older children’s displayed adult-like technique in Pretend Condition Contrary to original hypothesis Unanticipated Findings Influence of informal pilot testing Young children exposure to throwing task in daycare not considered Limitations Subjective video tape analysis Lengthy patience require Blocking for distance
Future Directions … Large scale analysis of each age range Extended research under randomized trials with increased age range Extensive interview conducted post- throwing trial to understand specific actions utilized in Pretend Condition Altered experimenter verbal instruction
General Summary In the Pretend Condition, children do not account for the appropriate changes in throwing kinematics associated with altering distances of a target, if targets are presented in a randomized order. When distances are blocked over three trials, and targets are presented with distance increasing, children begin to illustrate adult-like throwing patterns in the Pretend Condition. Confirmation of blocking for distance as the variable associated with children’s success in the imaginary situation might only be supported by future statistical analysis as well as additional tests associated with differences among ages, as well as cognitive understanding of one’s displayed action.
Acknowledgements Thank you to the team of researchers associated with this study. A special thank you to Gayathri Narasimham for her time and dedication to this project. Additional thanks to Karen Rieser, Dr. Craig Smith, Dr. Sue Hespos, and Dr. Michael Rose for their undying support. Thank you to my family. Thank you to Jonathan Herberg and Dr. Tom Carr for their contribution to the defense. Finally, I thank Dr. John Rieser for his wonderful mentorship and active participation in research, as well as his confidence to allow me the freedom to think, discover and imagine. I also thank John for his kind human spirit, as well as his respect and interest in my overall wellbeing. I believe this to be a rare quality of such a well-regarded professor. -p.s.c
References: Brenner, Eli, Smeets, B.J., & Jeroen. (1997). Fast responses of the human hand to changes in target position. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 297-310. Conditt, A., Michael, Gandolfo, F., Mussa-Ivaldi, A.F. (1997). The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. Journal-of-Neurophysiology. 78, 554-560. D ’ Avella, Andrea, Saltiel, Philippe, Bizzi, Emilio. (2003). Combinations of muscle synergies in the construction of a natural motor behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 300-308. DeMarie-Dreblow, Darlene, Miller, Patricia, H. (1988). The Development of Children ’ s Strategies for Selective Attention: Evidence for a Transitional Period. Child Development, 59, 1504-1513. Hore, Jon, Watts, Sherry. (2005). Timing finger opening in overarm throwing based on a spatial representation of Hand Path. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 3189-3199. Ivanchenko, V., Jacobs, A.R. (2003). A developmental approach aids motor learning. Neural Computation, 15, 2051-2065. Lillard, S, Angeline. (1998). Wanting to Be It: Children ’ s Understanding of Intentions Underlying Pretense. Child Development, 69, 981-993. Mah, D, Christopher, Ferdinando, A. Mussa-Ivaldi. (2003). Generalization of object manipulation skills learned without limb motion. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 4821-4825. Padoa-Schioppa, Camillo, Li, R., Chiang-Shan, Bizzi, Emilio. (2004). Neural zctivity in the supplementary motor areas of monkeys adapting to a new dynamic environment. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 449-473.
Peters, Michael. (1997). Gender differences in intercepting a moving target by using a throw or button press. Journal-of-Motor-Behavior, 29, 290-296. Poggio, Tomaso, Bizzi, Emilio. (2004). Gernalization in vision and motor control. nature, 431, 768-774. Rider, A.E., Rieser J.J. (1988). Pointing at objects in other rooms: young children ’ s sensitivity to perspective after walking with and without vision. Child Development, 58, 480-494. Timman, D., Watts, S., Hore, J. (1999) Failure of cerebellar patients to time finger opening precisely causes ball high-low inaccuracy in overarm throws. Journal-of-Neurophysiology, 82, 103-114. Todorov, Emanuel, Shadmehr, Reza, Bizzi, Emilio. (1997). Augmented feedback presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29:2, 147-158. References: