PEM4

PRINCIPLES OF MOTOR CONTROL AND LEARNING OF

EXERCISE, SPORTS AND DANCE

CHAPTER 5
MOVEMENT PRODUCTION AND MOTOR PROGRAMS

Objectives
When you have completed this chapter, you should be able to:
 Understand the concept of open-loop control for movement;
 Describe the rationale for and characteristics of motor programs;
 Understand how individuals might use generalized motor programs to
produce various versions of a particular type of movement (e.g., long,
medium and short hops), including versions they have never attempted
previously (e.g., a new hopscotch sequence); and
 Apply the principles of motor programming to practical performance
situations.

Preview
During a high-hurdles race in the sport of track and field, runners produce a
number of separate actions almost simultaneously. At each hurdle, they stretch
forward with one leg (let’s say it’s the left) to clear the hurdle; bring the right arm
forward, almost touching the toes; move the left arm backward with the elbow flexed;
bring the right leg to the side with the knee sharply flexed to clear the hurdle; and
then bring the left leg down sharply to the ground to initiate the next step. Runners
execute this combination of clearly identifiable movements in an instant, with correct
sequencing and a level of coordination that gives the impression of a single, fluid
action. How do skilled athletes and other types of performers produce so many
movements so quickly? How do they control the individual components and combine
them to form a whole movement?
Overview
In the last chapter, we talked about the role of closed-loop processes in
movement control. We learned that some forms of closed-loop control simply take so
long that no corrections can be made in the movement before it is completed.
Clearly, performers somehow control rapid acts of a discrete or serial nature, but it is
unlikely that they use closed-loop processes to do so.
 In this chapter, we examine the idea of open-loop control and introduce the
concept of the motor program, a structure that may be responsible for the control of
rapid acts. We then discuss how motor programs might be used in conjunction with
various reflex pathways (mentioned in the previous chapter) to give a more complete
picture of central and peripheral contributions to movement control. Finally, we
describe the concept of generalized motor programs which, because of their
flexibility, may be the sort of mechanisms that allow individuals to produce slight
variations of particular types of movements (e.g., hopping different distances and
speeds, on either leg).

Lesson 1 MOTOR PROGRAM THEORY

For many actions, particularly those that are brief in duration and produced in
stable and predictable environments (e.g., springboard diving, dropping a load of dirt
from a front-end loader into a dump truck, dart throwing, hopping over a puddle of a
water), individuals usually plan the movement in advance, then trigger the action in a
such a way that it runs its course without much modification. There is very little
conscious control over the movement once it is initiated; rather, the action just
seems to “take care of itself”. In this respect, humans are fortunate. The possible
combinations of muscle and joint activity our bodies are capable of producing are so
large in number that it would be virtually impossible for us to try to regulate them
consciously while we are executing rapid, skilled actions. All of the independent
components of a control system and the number of ways each component can act
are sometimes called Degrees of Freedom. A challenge for performers is learning
how to manage the degrees of freedom so that the desired action is produced in the
most effective way.
The question is how are all the degrees of freedom controlled for rapid
movements? In many ways, this question is one of the most fundamental for
students of motor behavior because it deals with the issue of how biological systems
of all kinds control actions. In order to answer this question, we must have some
idea of how the central nervous system is functionally organized before and during
action and how this organization contributes to the control of the unfolding
movement. In Chapter 4, we considered the ways sensory information might
contribute to or modify movement production. However, we did not examine in
much detail what the sensory information was modifying.
Most likely, sensory information modifies a set of pre-structured movement
commands, often referred to as the Motor Program, which defines and shapes the
action being produced. The concept of the motor program, which is the central
theme of this chapter, is based on a type of a control system that is referred to as an
Open-Loop Control System. It is in some ways opposite the closed-loop system
that we described in chapter 4.
Lesson 2 OPEN-LOOP CONTROL

Figure 5.1 shows a diagram of a typical open-loop control system. It consists

of essentially two parts: an executive and an effector. If you refer back to figure 4.1,
you will see that these two components are also contained in the closed-loop
control system. Missing from the open-loop control system, however, are the
Feedback loop and the Comparator that determine the errors. The system shown
in figure 5.1 begins with the input being delivered to the executive. This input then
processed and a decision is made about the action to be taken. Instructions
regarding the production of this action are then transmitted to the effector, which
carries them out. Once the action is completed, the open-loop system’s work is
finished. Without feedback, the system is “unaware” of whether the action was
successful in achieving the environmental goal. Modifications to the action are not
made while the movement is in progress.

Figure 5.1 Elements of an Open-Loop Control System

This kind of control is used in a variety of real-world systems. For example,

the open-loop mechanism that regulates traffic flow at many intersections often
operates by illuminating a repetitive sequence of green, yellow, and red lights. If an
accident should occur at the intersection, the system continues to activate the light
sequence as if nothing had happened. Thus, one characteristics of an open-loop
control system is that it is effective as long as the circumstances surrounding the
action are unchanged, but it is inflexible in the face of unexpected changes.
 Another example of an open-loop control system is a simple computer
program, which some scientists believe is the basis for the idea of the motor
program. Put simply, computer programs are sets of instructions that tell the
computer what to do and in what order to do it. In some cases, the computer
program also specifies the timing of the operations (i.e., what should be done, when
and for how long). Although many computer programs are sensitive to feedback (i.e.,
errors), the classical open-loop computer program is not. In such cases, the
computer faithfully follows the instructions provided by the program without any
regard for whether the actions are correct or whether the result have met the
programmer’s intended goals.

Open-loop systems are most effective for controlling operations that occur in
stable, predictable environments where the need for modification of commands is
low. Generally, the characteristics of a purely open-loop control system can be
summarized as follows:

 Advance instructions are given that specify the operations to be performed,

as well as their sequencing and timing.
 Once the program has been initiated, the system faithfully carries out the
instructions without modification.
 Because feedback is not being used during a completely programmed
movement, there is virtually no capability for detecting or correcting errors.

Lesson 3 THE MOTOR PROGRAM AS AN OPEN-LOOP CONTROL SYSTEM

In a sense, much of our movement behavior especially those actions that are
quick and forceful, such as kicking and throwing is controlled in an open-loop fashion
and carried out without much feedback involvement. When performing these tasks,
we usually do not have time to process information about movement errors and must
therefore plan the action properly before we initiate it. This is quite different from the
style of control discussed in the previous chapter, in which slower movements could
be modified by feedback processes of various kinds.
Open-loop control seems to be especially effective in environmental situations
that are predictable and stable. Under such circumstances no changes in the
planned movement are needed once the action is begun. The psychologist Williams
James (1890) popularized this general idea over 100 years ago, and it continues to
be one of the most important ways for us to understand the movement control.
Figure 5.2 illustrates this general idea of motor program control by combining the
basic open-loop system shown in figure 5.1 with some of the processes we
discussed in earlier chapters.
 Input

Stimulus
Identification
Executive:
Response
Selection The Stages
of Information
Processing
Response Programming

Motor Program

Effector:
Spinal Cord
The Motor
Program and
Peripheral
Muscles Motor System

Output

Figure 5.2 An expanded open-loop control system for human performance.

The executive contains the stages of information processing, which determine
what to do, while the effector comes out the movement.
 In quick, forceful actions, movement behavior is largely controlled in an open-loop
fashion, without much feedback involvement.

Consider a task such as hitting a pitched baseball. In the executive, the

stages of information processing (see chapter 3) are activated to evaluate the
environment (stimulus identification), decide whether or not to swing (response
selection), and, if the decision is made to swing, develop and initiate the motor
program for doing so (response programming).

Control is then passed on to the effector mechanism for movement

execution. Here the motor program is delivered to the spinal cord and then to the
muscles where contraction takes place. If the resulting action (e.g., the bat swing)
produces the intended outcome (i.e., contact with the ball), a change in the
environment occurs (i.e., the path of the ball chances).

In this type of open-loop control system, the motor program determines which
muscle should contract, as well as the order and timing of the contraction. The
stages of processing are used to develop the motor program by determining the
action to be initiated and, to some extent, the eventual form of the movement (e.g.,
the speed and trajectory of a swing). Movement execution, however, is carried out in
the absence of direct conscious control.

Initially a program might be capable of controlling only a short string of

actions. With practice, however, the program becomes more elaborate, controlling
longer and longer strings of behavior, and perhaps even modulating various reflexive
activities that support the overall movement goal. Once learned, these programs are
stored in long-term memory and retrieved and needed to prepare (using the
response-programming stage) future movements for execution.

One major advantage of motor program control is that not as much attention
is needed for movement production. With motor program control, entire sequences
of action are run off without the need for additional organization. The more
sophisticated the motor program, the longer it runs and the larger the chunk of
skilled behavior it controls. When this happens, the response-programming stage is
involved less often and attentional processes are freed up to perform other high-
order activities, such as the monitoring of movement form or style in gymnastics or
dance, the development of strategic plans in tennis, or paying attention to safety
hazards in operating earthmoving equipment.

Lesson 4 OPEN-LOOP CONTROL WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure 5.3 shows the conceptual model used earlier in figure 4.9, only now
the shaded portions represents the open-loop components shown in figure 5.2. The
 model can now be viewed as an open-loop control system, with feedback loops (i.e.,
the unshaded portion on the right side of the figure) that allow for the various types
of closed-loop corrections we discussed in Chapter 4. This more complete version of
the conceptual model has the potential to operate in either of the two basic ways,
depending on the nature of the task. If the movement to be produced is very slow,
control is dominated by the operation of feedback processes. If the movement is
very fast, control is predominantly governed by the operation of open-loop
processes. It is important to remember, however, that most motor behavior is a
complex blend of both open- and closed-loop operations. Therefore, both types of
control are often at work simultaneously or intermittently.

Input

Stimulus
Identification

Response
Selection
Response
Programming
Desired State
Comparator

Motor
Program
M2
Ambie
Spinal Cord nt Actual
M1 State
Vision

Muscles Proprioceptive Feedback

Exteroceptive Feedback
Output
Focal Vision

Figure 5.3 The Conceptual Model of Human Performance with the Open-Loop
components highlighted.
 With very fast actions, the notion of motor programs offers a useful set of
ideas and vocabulary for discussing how the motor system might be functionally
organized. That is, if a movement appears to be organized in advance, is triggered
more or less as a whole, and is carried out without much modification from sensory
feedback, it is reasonable to label it “a programmed action.” This type of language
describes a style of motor control that involves central movement organization,
where movement details are determined by the central nervous system and then
sent to the muscles. This style of control contrasts sharply with that involving
ongoing modification of a movement using peripheral feedback processes. Of
course, both styles are possible and may even operate simultaneously to varying
extents depending on the nature of the task, the time involved, and other factors.
A simple example of how we control movements using both open-loop and
closed-loop processes is the game of bounce and catch. Stand in an upright position
and bounce a tennis ball on the ground in front of you. As the ball rises from the
ground, catch it. Repeat the task several times, bouncing the ball to a different
height and catching it at a different point each time. Which aspects of this simple
task are you controlling in an open-loop fashion? Which aspects are you controlling
in a closed-loop fashion?

Lesson 5 THREE LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR MOTOR PROGRAMS

Essentially three separate lines of research evidence converge to support the

theory of motor program control of fast actions. This evidence includes studies
examining the effects of movement complexity on reaction time, experiments on
animals that have undergone surgical elimination of feedback pathways, and
research using Electromyography (EMG) to analyze patterns of movements that
are unexpectedly blocked.

Electromyography (EMG) - is a device for recording the electrical activity in a

muscle or group of muscles.

1. Reaction Time and Movement Complexity

Reaction Time (RT) is the interval of time that elapses from the presentation
of an unanticipated stimulus to the beginning of a person's response. In 1960, Henry
and Rogers examined the RT of participants who were asked to respond to a
stimulus by initiating and then carrying out predetermined movements that varied in
complexity. What they found was that RT increased as the complexity of the
movement to be produced increased. Since that time, several features of
movements that make them more complex have been shown to lengthen RT:

 RT increases when additional elements are added to a movement. A

brake press in a car with an automatic transmission requires a shorter RT
than one in a car with a manual transmission, because the latter task also
requires depression of the clutch.
 RT increases when movements require the coordination of a greater
number of limbs. A one-handed blocking movement in judo or boxing is
produced in a shorter RT than a more complicated two-handed
movement.
 RT increases when the duration of the movement becomes longer. A bat
swing that lasts 100 ms has a shorter RT than one lasting 300 ms.

The interpretation of these findings is that when the action is more complex
(in any of the above-mentioned ways), RT is longer because more time is required to
organize the system for movement initiation. This prior organization occurs in the
response-programming stage. According to motor program theory, movements that
are organized in advance should take longer to program if they are more complex.

2. Deafferentation Experiments

In chapter 4, we mentioned that sensory information from the joints and muscles
is carried to the spinal cord. A surgical technique termed Deafferentation involves a
severing of the nerve bundle at the point where it enters the cord. Once this
operation is performed, the central nervous system no longer receives sensory
information from a particular portion of the periphery, such as an entire limb, or even
several limbs.
A number of researchers have used the deafferentation procedure to examine
the motor control characteristics of experimental animals. The question of interest is
what types of movements are possible when animals are deprived of sensory
feedback from their limbs. Films taken of monkeys with deafferented upper limbs
show that they are still able to climb around, playfully chase each other, and groom
and feed themselves. In fact, it is often very difficult for viewers to recognize that
these animals have a total loss of sensory information from their upper limbs (Taub,
1976; Taub and Berman, 1968). The monkeys demonstrate some difficulty in fine
motor control, such as in picking up a pea or manipulating small objects with their
fingers. But on the whole, they show remarkably little impairment in most of their
movement activities.
 Studies of this kind clearly illustrate that sensory information from the moving
limb is not critical for movement production, and in fact many movements can easily
occur without it. This evidence suggests that theories of movement control that
presume a need for sensory information from the responding limb are generally
incorrect. Because feedback-based notions of motor control cannot account for the
monkey's movement capabilities, many theorists have argued that movements must
be organized centrally in motor programs and carried out in an open-loop fashion. If
the movement is fast enough, a mechanism like a motor program would have to be
used to control the entire action, with the movement being carried out as though the
performer were deprived of feedback. Our capability to move quickly gives additional
support to the idea that we use some central program to handle that type of
movement control.

3. Effects of Mechanically Blocking a Limb

A third line of evidence supporting motor program control comes from

experiments in which individuals are instructed to make a quick limb action (e.g.,
moving a lever to a target position as rapidly as possible). On some trials,
participants initiate and complete the movement, while on others, unbeknownst to
the individuals, they are prevented from completing the movement (e.g., by a
mechanical block inserted by the experimenter to keep the lever from moving).
Figure 5.4 shows an integrated electromyogram (EMG recording) of the muscle
activity resulting from a quick elbow-extension movement to a target (Wadman et al.,
1979). In the unblocked movement (black lines) there is first a burst of activity in the
agonist (triceps) muscle, then the triceps turns off and the antagonist (biceps)
muscle is activated to decelerate the limb. Finally, the agonist turns on again to
stabilize the movement near the target. This triple-burst EMG pattern is typical of the
way muscles turn on and off during quick movements of this kind.
The EMG pattern for trials in which the movement was unexpectedly prevented
(green lines) reveals an initial pattern of muscular activity similar to that seen for the
unblocked movement. Only after about 120 ms or so is there a slight modification of
the patterning, undoubtedly caused by some of the reflex activities (e.g., stretch
reflexes) we discussed in chapter 4. The
mostFigure 5.4. Agonist
impressive (triceps)
finding is and
that the
antagonist (biceps) EMG activity
antagonist (biceps) muscle contracts in at
all ainrapid
the elbow-extension
blocked movement movement.
(since its
The green traces are from a
function is to decelerate a moving limb!),
movement which was mechanically
not to mention that it contracts at the
blocked at the outset. (Reprinted by
same time from
permission as W.in Wadman
the unblocked
et al,,
movement.
1979. "Control of Fast Goal-
Directed Arm Movements", Journal
of Human Movement Studies 5:10).
 Although feedback from the blocked limb is massively disrupted, EMG patterning
is essentially the same as that for the unblocked movement, particularly during the
first 100 ms or so. Data such as these contradict the idea that feedback from the
moving limb (during the action) acts as a signal (a trigger) to activate the antagonist
muscle at the proper time. Rather, these findings suggest that agonist and
antagonist EMG activities are planned in advance and these signals are produced
unmodified by sensory information for 100 ms to 120 ms, or at least until the first
reflexive responses are activated.

Lesson 6 HOW AND WHEN DO PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTE TO ACTIONS

In the case of rapid movements, open-loop control allows the motor system to
organize an entire action ahead of time. In order for this to occur, the programming
process must include the following specifications.
●The particular muscles that that are needed to produce the action
●The order in which these muscles are to be activated
●The relative forces of the various muscle contractions
●The relative timing and sequencing of these contractions
●The duration of the respective contractions
Most motor program theorists assume that a movement is organized in advance
by a program that sets up some kind of neural mechanism, or network, containing
time and event information - a movement script, if you will, that specifies certain
essential details of the movement as it runs off over time. Some scientists even
speak of performers "running" a motor program, which is clearly analogous to the
processes involved in a running a computer program.
A particularly useful analogy or model for the motor program is the old
phonograph record. The record defines which sounds are to occur and in what
order, the duration and timing (rhythm) of those events, and the relative intensities of
the sounds. Unlike the phonograph record, the motor program does not specify
every aspect of the movement, since reflexive activities are possible. Nevertheless,
the motor program and the phonograph record operate conceptually in more or less
the same way.
 Postural Adjustment Before Action
Imagine that you are a participant in an experiment in which you are instructed
to stand with your arms at your sides and then, on command, raise your right arm as
quickly as possible to shoulder level. Where do you think the first detectable
muscular activity associated with this movement would come from? Most people
would guess the shoulder muscles, but in fact those muscles are activated relatively
late in the sequence of events. Actually, the first muscles to contract, some 80 ms
before noticeable EMG activity occurs in the shoulders, are those in the lower back
and legs (Belen'kii, Gurfinkel, & Pal'tsev, 1967).
This order of muscular activity may sound strange, but it is really quiet "smart"
for the motor system to operate this way. Since the shoulder muscles are
mechanically linked to the rest of the body (e.g., the back and the arms), their
contraction affects posture. If no preparatory compensations in posture were made,
raising the arm would shift the center of gravity forward, causing a slight loss of
balance. The motor system takes care of this potential problem by programming the
appropriate postural modifications first, rather than requiring the body to make
adjustments after the arm begins to move.
There is good evidence that these preparatory postural adjustments are really
just a part of the motor program for arm movements (W. A. Lee, 1980). When arm
movements are organized, the motor program contains instructions to adjust posture
and then move the arm, so that the action is performed as coordinated whole. Thus,
we should not think of arm movement and posture control as separate events but
simply as different parts of an integrated action that raises the arm while maintaining
balance. Interestingly, these preparatory postural adjustments vanish from the EMG
record when individuals lean against some type of support prior to performing the
arm movement. The "smart" system apparently realizes that advance preparation of
posture is not needed for that type of situation.

Lesson 7 CENTRAL PATTERN GENERATOR

The idea of the motor program is similar to the concept of the Central Pattern
Generator (CPG), which purports to explain certain features of repetitive action,
such as locomotion in animals, swimming in fish, chewing in hamsters, and slithering
in snakes (Grillner, 1975). For these species, some genetically defined (inherited)
central organization is established in the brain stem or the spinal cord. When
initiated by a triggering stimulus (sometimes called a “command neuron”) in the
brain, rhythmic, oscillating instructions are sent to the musculature. These signals
define a sequence of alternating and repetitive activities like those that occur during
normal locomotion. Studies with nonhuman species indicate that the commands are
forwarded even when sensory nerves are cut (deafferented), suggesting that this
type of organization is truly central in nature.

While the notion of the CPG is almost identical to that of the motor program,
there is an important difference. The CPG relates more to genetically defined
activities such as locomotion, chewing and breathing, whereas the motor program
involves learned activities that are centrally controlled (such as kicking and
throwing).

Integration of Central Organization and Feedback Control

Although, it is clear that the central organization of movements is a major

source of motor control, it is also obvious that sensory information modifies these
commands in several important ways. Thus, the question becomes how and under
what conditions the commands from programs and CPGs interact with sensory
information to define the overall movement pattern. Leg reflex, causing either an
extension or a flexion depending on where in the step cycle the stimulus applied,
has been called Reflex Reversal Phenomenon (Forssberg, Grillner, and Rossignol,
1975). Most significantly, its challenges the usual conceptualization of a reflex, which
is defined as an automatic, stereotyped response to a given stimulus. In the case of
the reflex reversal phenomenon, the same stimulus generates different responses at
different times.
Scientists believe that this variation in response occurs because of ongoing
interactions among the movement program for locomotion, the CPG, and feedback
that is carried along sensory pathways. The CPG is responsible for many of the
major events that occur during locomotion and other rhythmical activities, such as
sequencing and timing of muscles contractions. In addition, CPGs are now thought
to be involved in the modulation of reflexes during repetitive action, producing the
reflex reversal phenomenon. The logic is that the CPG determines whether and
when certain reflex pathways are to be activated during the action, as diagrammed
in figured 5.6, a and b.
  Figure 5.6 a

During the swing phase of locomotion when the foot is being lifted from
the ground, the CPG activates the flexion reflex (by closing the circuit) and inhibits
the extension reflex (by opening or breaking the circuit). If a tactile stimulus occurs
during the swing phase, it is routed to the flexion reflex, not to the extension reflex.

 Figure 5.6 b

If the stimulus occurs during the stance phase, when the foot is being
placed on the ground, it is routed to the extension reflex, not to the flexion reflex.
This process is repeated as long as the step cycle continues. If no stimulus
occurs at any time during locomotion, there is no reflex activity at all, and the
CPG produces the action uninterrupted.

Lesson 8 MOTOR PROGRAMS AND THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Motor programs are an important component of the conceptual model seen in

figure 5.3. They operate within the motor system, sometimes in conjunction with
feedback, to produce flexible skilled actions. The open-loop part of these actions
provides the organization, or pattern, that may later be modified by feedback
processes, if necessary. Motor programs also assist performers in regulating the
many degrees of freedom in their movements. The concept of degrees of freedom,
which we defined earlier in this chapter, pertains to the components of the motor
system (e.g., muscles and joints) and all the ways in which each of the components
can function. A simple example is to examine some of the ways you could choose to
move just your index finger. If you lock or “freeze” the top two (distal, near the
fingertip) joints, you can move the finger in a forward-backward direction, a left-right
direction, or rotate it clockwise or counterclockwise in a circle. This example
illustrates just a few of the degrees of freedom you have in moving just one
appendage.

A big challenge for performers is identifying the combinations of degrees of

freedom that produce the most effective and efficient movements. Muscles and
joints that a performer allows to move during an action (e.g., the plane in which the
index finger is moving) are said to be “free” to vary, while those the individual
prevents from moving (e.g., the top two joints of the index finger) are the ones she or
he “freezes".

Another factor that appears to influence the way people program their
movements is the anticipated final position of the limb or appendage. In a study by
Rosenbaum (1989), participants performed a task in which they reached out and
grasped a control handle and then rotated it to a target position. During the course of
the experiment, individuals rotated the handle under a variety of conditions that
involved a number of combinations of start and target positions. The results revealed
that the way individuals oriented their hand prior to grasping the handle at the start
position (in some cases, the position seemed quite awkward and contorted)
depended on the terminal or target position to which they would be moving. One
interpretation of these results is that the system programmed the initial position of
the hand in a way that ensured that the final position of the hand at the target
position was always the same (and in the most comfortable position!).

The major roles of motor programs include the following:

 To define and issue the commands that ultimately determine which muscles
to contract, when, and how forcefully
 To organize the many degrees of freedom of the muscles and joints into a
single unit to produce an effective and efficient action
 To specify and initiate preliminary postural adjustment that performers need
to support the upcoming action
 To modulate the many reflex pathways in order to ensure that the movement
goal is achieved

Motor Programs, Along with Feedback, Manage the Degrees of Freedom in

Movement Control

Motor programs operate within the motor system, sometimes in conjunction with
feedback, to manage the degrees of freedom of movements and produce flexible
skilled actions. In a study by Steenbergen, Marteniuk and Kalbfleisch (1995), seven
right-handed individuals were seated and performed a task in which they reached
forward a distance of 30 cm, grasped a Styrofoam cup. moved it a distance of 20
cm, and placed it in the center of a plate. During half of the movement attempts, the
cup was empty; during the other half of the attempts, it was filled with cold coffee.
Individuals performed half of the movements with their right hand (involving a
leftward movement of the cup) and the other half with their left hand (involving a
rightward movement of the cup). An analysis of movement patterns under the
various conditions revealed that the speed of both the reaching and transporting
phases of the participants’ movements was slower when the cup was full than when
it was empty -and when the task was performed with the left (nonpreferred) hand
than when it was performed with the right. During these slower movements,
individuals reduced the angular motion of their elbow and shoulder joints and
increased the motion of their trunk. One interpretation of these results is that under
the fuIl-cup condition, the motor program “froze" selected joints (in this case the
elbow and shoulder) in order to reduce the frequency of feedback-based corrections
the performer needed to make while moving the cup full of liquid. It is also possible
that the program selected the postural position for the full-cup condition because it is
inherently more stable, is less susceptible to perturbations or requires corrections of
smaller amplitude.

The Bernstein, or Dynamical, Perspective

There is an alternate view to the notion of the motor program for explaining the
mechanisms of movement control. In fact, several theorists who have been critical of
the motor program concept have countered with ideas that are usually referred to as
the Bernstein Perspective (after Russian physiologist N. I. Bernstein) or the
Dynamical Perspective (Bernstein, 1967; Kelso, 1995). These dynamicists argue
that the motor program concept places too much emphasis on the organization,
control, and representation of every action in the central nervous system and that it
ignores many of the dynamic features of movements, such as the springlike
properties of contracting muscles and the preferred frequencies of oscillation of limb
segments.

Proponents of the dynamical perspective hold that the regularities of movement

patterns are not represented in motor programs, but rather emerge naturally (that is,
physically) as the result of complex interactions among numerous connected
elements. This idea is analogous to theoretical propositions explaining the
organization and structure of many complex physical systems in the absence of a
central program or set of commands. Examples of such “spontaneous” organization
include the sudden transformation of still water to rolling patterns as it begins to boil
and the ordering of water molecules into crystals when the temperature drops to
freezing. Just as it would make little sense to postulate a central program for
governing the patterns that emerge in boiling and freezing water, they argue, it is
incorrect to think that motor programs are needed to control complex patterns of
human action. Supporting evidence they point to includes research that shows that
the exact dynamics of patterns of limb action during gait or locomotion are achieved
by basic demands for stability (Hoyt & Taylor, 1981) and by the simple mechanical
properties of the muscles in combination with gravitational forces (McMahon, 1984).
Findings such as these suggest that an extensive motor program is not needed to
govern the control of repetitive actions.

The debate of these issues continues in a healthy scientific fashion (T. D. Lee,
1998; Sternad, 1998; Walter, 1998). Perhaps one day we will find that the best
explanation for movement control lies in some combination of the various viewpoints
(Colley & Beech, 1988). Nevertheless, thinking .of the motor system as being driven
by motor programs continues to be a helpful way to integrate many different types of
research findings into a unified structure.
Lesson 9 GENERALIZED MOTOR PROGRAMS

The theory of motor programs is very useful for understanding the functional
organization of certain kinds of actions. However, simple motor program theory does
not encompass several important aspects of movement behaviour. Its most severe
limitation is a failure to explain how people are able to produce novel movements
and create flexible movement patterns.

How is a Novel Movement Produce?

Frequently we see a champion tennis player demonstrate an amazing capability

to produce actions that appear completely novel (i.e., new and different). The player
may be out of position, yet she is often able to return her opponent’s shot with a shot
of her own that looks extremely unorthodox and almost certainly could not have
been practiced previously. When you consider the immense number of possible
combinations of ball flight characteristics (i.e., speed, angle, trajectory, spin,
unpredictable bounces), changes in court position of the two opponents, and so on,
it is likely that each shot a player hits is essentially novel in that it has never been
performed exactly that way before. In spite of all this, advanced players execute their
movements with great style and grace, as if they are producing well-practiced
actions.

Observations such as these raise problems for the formulations of a simple

Motor Program Theory. According to the simple view each variation of the same
general movement, such as the tennis swing, needs its own program because
differences in ball flight characteristics, positioning of the opponent, and so on
require a particular set of instructions, which are stored in long- term memory, to the
muscles. Since there is likely an unlimited number of variations of some movements
(e.g., kicking, throwing, striking, jumping), performers need to have a countless
number of motor programs to produce all of these movements. As you may have
probably surmised by now, the number of variations possible in tennis, not to
mention in all other motor activities, creates the dilemma of an enormous number of
programs being deposited in long-term memory; a problem Dick Schmidt has
appropriately termed the Storage Problem (Schmidt, 1975; Schmidt & Lee, 1998).

In addition to the storage problem, simple motor program theory must also deal
with the Novelty Problem. Before discussing this problem further, we dare you to try
the following activity: From a standing position, jump up and rotate your body one-
quarter turn to the left, and, while still in the air, touch your head with your right hand
and your leg with your left hand. Were you able to do it? Although we doubt that you
have ever attempted this movement before, our guess is that you were probably
able to perform it effectively on the first or second try. Now the question is where
does the specific program for this action come from? It could not have been learned
and placed in long-term memory, unless you have practiced the movement before
now. And it is not likely that the program was genetically determined, because such
a movement would seem to have little biological significance, unlike those you need
for locomotion or chewing, for example. Motor program theory is at a loss to explain
the performance of such novel actions.

Lesson 10 HOW CAN MOTOR PROGRAM OUTPUT BE MODIFIED?

The storage and novelty problems motivated a search by scientists for

alternative ways of understanding motor control. The result was an idea that
emerged in the 1970s, one that characterized movement programs in a more
general fashion. The concept of the Generalized Motor Program views the
program as a stored movement pattern. However, unlike the pattern of the simple
motor program, the generalized motor program is one that can be modified slightly
when the program is executed, allowing performers to adjust the movement in order
to meet altered environmental demands.

Over a half century ago, the British psychologist Sir Fredrick Bartlett (1932)
wrote this about his tennis stroke: “When I make the stroke, I do not… produce
something absolutely new, and I never repeat something old.”

The first part of Bartlett’s statement suggests that a movement is never totally
new. All of his ground strokes resembled each other because they possessed
Bartlett’s own style of hitting a tennis ball (don’t we all have our own individual and
unique style of moving?). The second part of Bartlett’s statement conveys the idea
discussed in the previous section, that every movement is also novel in that it has
never been performed exactly the same at any other time. What, then, are some of
the features that performers can change when they produce the same type of
movement in different ways?

Variations in Movement Time

 When we play throw and catch with a friend, sometimes we throw the ball
faster and other times we throw it slower. That we are able to change the time or
speed of our movements without significantly altering the pattern has been nicely
demonstrated in an experiment by Armstrong (1970). He asked participants to move
a control stick in a left-right-left-right-left motion, controlling the movement at the
elbow joint. The solid black line in figure 5.7 illustrates the pattern these individuals
were trying to produce. As you can see, the goal pattern required them to move the
stick to the left for the first 0.75s, then back to the right until 1.95 s, then back to the
left until 2.90 s, then back to the right until 3.59 s, and finally back to the left to stop
at the original position in a total time of 4 s.

Not surprisingly, participants were often unable to produce their movements

in exactly 4 s. An example of the one pattern is shown in figure 5.7 (green line). As
you can see, this individual made the first reversal movement slightly sooner that of
the goal pattern (i.e., after 0.66 s, compared with 0.75 s) and produced subsequent
reversals that occurred increasingly “early”. However, it is clear that the participant’s
pattern was similar to the goal pattern in form even though it was produced too
quickly (i.e., completed in closer to 3 s than to 4 s).

Another way to think of this relationship is to imagine the participant’s pattern

in figure 5.7 being drawn on an expandable sheet that could be stretched to make
the final peak of the participant’s pattern (green line) line up with the final peak of the
goal pattern. If we did this, we would see that all of the other peaks in the
participant’s pattern would be lined up with their respective peaks in the goal pattern.
This illustration is similar to that of the phonograph record analogy of motor
programs we discussed earlier. Just as a record can be played at a faster speed
while still preserving the structure of the song, so too can a movement be produced
in a shorter time (as shown in figure 5.7) while still preserving the fundamental
pattern. In both cases, all aspects of the goal pattern are represented by a common
underlying temporal (and sequential) arrangement that can be run off at different
speeds.
 Variations in Movement Amplitude

The amplitude of movements is another feature individuals can change when

performing the same action in slightly different ways. For example, you can write
your signature in quarter-inch high letters on a bank check or in six-inch high letters
on a blackboard. In both cases, the signature is clearly yours (Merton, 1972)

Hollerbach (1978) studied the handwriting phenomenon more formally by

asking individuals to write the word hell in different-sized letters. He then measured
the acceleration patterns (i.e., changes in speed) of the actions exerted by their
fingers. Patterns for two different-sized versions of the word are graphed in figure

5.8, the upward trace indicating that the movement is accelerating away from the
body and the downward trace indicating that the movement is accelerating toward
the body. Not surprisingly, when individuals wrote the word in larger letters (black
line), the overall magnitude of the acceleration trace was larger than when they
wrote it in smaller letters (green line). Of greater interest, though, is the fact that the
patterns of acceleration for both versions were almost identical.

Individuals can be easily vary the amplitude of their movements (just as they
can the time) - by uniformly increasing or decreasing the accelerations (forces) they
apply while still preserving the overall temporal pattern. Such variations appear to be
possible for many kinds of movements. For example, we can hop various distances
on one foot while using the same fundamental hopping action.

Variations in Limb and Muscles Used

A third way people can vary their movements while still preserving the
fundamental pattern is by using a different limb or different muscles. In the signature
example, writing on a blackboard involves very different muscles and joints than
writing on a bank check. In blackboard, writing your fingers are mainly fixed, and you
do the writing using muscles that control the elbow and shoulder. In check writing,
your elbow and shoulder are mainly fixed, and you do the writing by using muscles
that control the fingers. Nevertheless, the pattern of your signature remains
essentially the same. This indicates that people can produce the same movement
pattern even when they use different effectors.

This phenomenon was studied by Raibert (1977), who attempted to write a

palindrome (i.e., a sentence spelled the same way both forward and backward)
using different effector systems. Raibert wrote the sentence “Able was I ere I saw
Elba” by using his right (dominant) hand (A), his right arm with the wrist immobilized
(B), his left hand (C), his teeth (D), and his foot with the pen taped to it (E). The
resulting sentences, shown in figure 5.9, reveal an amazingly similar writing style
even though they are written with the different limbs and muscles (including those in
the head and neck!). There is little doubt that the same person wrote all of them.
Once again, the fundamental temporal structure of the movement appears to have
been preserved under varied movement conditions - in this case when a person
used different effector systems to produce the action.

Lesson 11 IDENTIFYING MOVEMENT PARAMETERS

According to the theory of generalized motor programs, characteristics such

as movement time, movement amplitude, and the limb or muscles used in producing
the action are relatively superficial, or surface, features of fundamental movement
patterns. These Surface Features referred to as Parameters, meaning that they
are modifiable components of generalized motor programs. In the remainder of this
section, we illustrate how a performer might select parameter values when using a
generalized motor program in a particular situation.
Let’s say that a softball player receives and interprets sensory information
(stimulus-identification stage) and then selects (response-selection stage) a
generalized motor program for throwing. The player retrieves the program from long-
term memory in much the same way as she might retrieve a friend’s telephone
number, and the she prepares the program for initiation (response-programing
stage).
Most importantly, the performer determines how she wants to modify the
generalized throwing program for this occasion. Based on environmental information
available immediately prior to the action, she determines the most appropriate throw
(e.g., fast, slow, far, near, high, low) and perhaps the limb she needs to use. As she
makes these decisions, the performer estimates Parameter Values (i.e., movement
time, movement amplitude, and limb) she needs to produce the desired throw. For
example, if she decides to throw the ball a long distance in as short a time as
possible, the performer selects a rapid movement time and a large movement
amplitude. Since she is right-handed, the obvious limb choice for this type of throw is
her right arm because it is presumably stronger. Once she has these parameter
values, the performer is ready to initiate and carry out the movement.
By using generalized motor programs, performers are able to modify already
learned movement patterns in order to meet changing environmental demands. The
more individuals practice the process of parameterization (e.g., shortening or
lengthening the time or amplitude of a movement), the better they become at
determining parameter values that produce successful movements.

ASSESSMENT (From Principles to Practice)

Check your understanding of the material by responding to the following

questions and then completing the application exercises. In each case, see if you
can identify the most relevant questions or issues and then propose a solution based
on the concepts and principles discussed in the chapter.

Checking Your Understanding

1. What are the major components of an open-loop system? How does this type
of control system differ from the closed-loop system? Describe how each of
the components of the open-loop system might function for a person who is
tossing an empty softdrink can onto a recycling bin.
2. How do we know that motor programs exist? Discuss two of the three types of
research evidence that suggest support for the motor program notion. How
does each illustrate that individuals plan their movements in advance?
3. How do humans produce novel movements? Are such movements really
“new”? Provide an example of a novel movement that might be produced by a
shuffleboard player, a professional golfer, an airplane pilot, or a wheelchair
basketball player.
4. What is the generalized motor program? Indicate how this concept allows us
to explain the way performers adjust their movements to meet different sets of
environmental demands. Using the example you selected in the previous
question, explain how the generalized motor program might function to
produce the performer’s novel movement.

Application Exercise #1
 A senior has one of her hands amputated as a result of a diabetic condition.
Unfortunately, the hand that is removed is the one she has predominantly used
her entire life. (Strategies)

Application Exercise #2

A man wakes up, gets out of bed, and walks to the kitchen to fix breakfast.
(Strategies)

Application Exercise #3

A teenager is going to play the snare drums for the first time. (Strategies)

Application Exercise #4

A golf coach notices that during competitive matches, one of his players is
both “accurate” and “consistent” when he is hitting full shots (i.e., swings that are
performed using the full range of arm motion), but is “inaccurate” and
“inconsistent” when attempting approach shots (i.e., swings performed with
various amplitudes, each of which is less than the full range of motion).
(Strategies)