مطالعۀ کینماتیکی سازوکارهای اجرای جسمانی، مشاهدۀ عمل و تصویرسازی ذهنی با استفاده از دستکاری بازخورد

فاضلی, داود; تقی زاده, حسین; جباری, سیده فاطمه; قوهستانی, لیلا

doi:10.22059/jsmdl.2024.379355.1791

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license I Open Access I

نویسندگان

¹ گروه علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

² گروه علوم ورزشی ، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز ، شیراز، ایران.

³ گروه علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران .

⁴ گروه علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی ، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

https://doi.org/10.22059/jsmdl.2024.379355.1791

چکیده

مقدمه: هدف پژوهش حاضر آن بود که با دستکاری مستقیم بازخورد در حالت اجرای جسمانی و مشاهدۀ عمل به این موضوع بپردازد که آیا بازخورد به‌عنوان یک متغیر تعدیل‌کننده برای تأثیرات متفاوت تمرین جسمانی، مشاهده‌ای و تصویرسازی عمل می‌کند یا خیر؟
روش پژوهش: در این پژوهش 60 دانشجوی راست‌دست شرکت داشتند که به‌صورت تصادفی به شش گروه به‌صورت زیر تقسیم شدند: جسمانی، مشاهده‌ای، ذهنی، جسمانی بدون بازخورد، مشاهده‌ای بدون بازخورد و کنترل. افراد به مدت یک روز (9 بلوک 18 کوششی) به تمرین ضربه گلف پرداختند. گروه‌های تمرینی بر اساس گروه‌بندی ذکرشده به‌صورت جسمانی، مشاهده‌ای و یا تصویرسازی تکلیف را تمرین کردند. گروه‌های جسمانی بدون بازخورد و مشاهده‌ای بدون بازخورد از مشاهدۀ نقطۀ توقف توپ منع شدند. دقت ضربۀ افراد و تعداد درجات آزادی دینامیک به‌عنوان متغیر اجرا مورد سنجش قرار گرفتند.
یافته‌ها: در متغیر دقت حرکت نشان داده شد که حذف بازخورد در تمرین جسمانی و تمرین مشاهده‌ای سطح عملکرد را در حد تصویرسازی ذهنی کاهش می‌دهد. با این حال در تعداد درجات آزادی دینامیک نشان داده شد که تصویرسازی حرکتی با گروه‌های بدون بازخورد تفاوت معنا‌داری دارد و حذف بازخورد در این دو حالت موجب مشابهت با تصویرسازی ذهنی نشد.
نتیجه‌گیری: این نتایج بر اساس مکانیزم‌های زیربنایی متفاوت توجیه شدند. استدلال شد که تمرین جسمی یک تمرین ادراک‌محور است و تصویرسازی ذهنی یک تمرین مبتنی بر شناخت است که بر بازنمایی حافظه‌ای برای تولید حرکت تکیه دارد. در مقابل تمرین مشاهده‌ای یک فرایند دوسویة ادراکی-شناختی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Kinematical Study of Mechanisms of Physical Performance, Action Observation, and Mental Imagery Using Feedback Manipulation

نویسندگان [English]

Davoud Fazeli ¹
Hossein Taghizadeh ²
Fatemeh Jabbari ³
Leila Ghohestani ⁴

¹ Department of Sports Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

² Department of Sports Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University , Shiraz, Iran.

³ Department of Sports Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz , Iran.

⁴ Department of Sports Sciences , Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Introduction: This study aimed to directly manipulate feedback during physical execution and action observation to determine whether feedback acts as a mediating variable in the different effects of physical practice, observational practice, and motor imagery.
Methods: Sixty right-handed students participated in the study and were randomly assigned to six groups: physical practice, observational practice, mental (motor imagery) practice, physical practice without feedback, observational practice without feedback, and a control group. Participants practiced golf putting for one day (9 blocks of 18 trials each). Each training group performed the task according to their assigned condition—physically, observationally, or through motor imagery. In the physical without feedback and observational without feedback conditions, participants were prevented from observing the ball's stopping point. Performance was measured using two variables: shot accuracy and the number of dynamic degrees of freedom.
Results: In terms of movement accuracy, results showed that removing feedback in both physical and observational practice reduced performance to the level of mental imagery. However, regarding the number of dynamic degrees of freedom, motor imagery significantly differed from the no-feedback groups. Removing feedback in these two conditions did not bring their performance to the level of mental practice.
Conclusion: These findings were interpreted based on underlying cognitive and perceptual mechanisms. It was argued that physical practice is perception-based, while motor imagery relies on memory representations and is therefore more cognitively driven. Observational practice, in contrast, appears to involve a bidirectional perceptual-cognitive process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Feedback
Mental Representation
Observational Learning

مراجع

Calmels, C., Holmes, P., Lopez, E., & Naman, V. (2006). Chronometric comparison of actual and imaged complex movement patterns. Journal of motor behavior, 38(5), 339-348. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.38.5.339-348

Chen, H. H., Liu, Y. T., Mayer-Kress, G., & Newell, K. M. (2005). Learning the pedalo locomotion task. Journal of motor behavior, 37(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.37.3.247-256

Coelho, C. J., Nusbaum, H. C., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Fenn, K. M. (2012). Imagined actions aren't just weak actions: Task variability promotes skill learning in physical practice but not in mental practice. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 38(6), 1759. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028065

Decety, J., & Jeannerod, M. (1995). Mentally simulated movements in virtual reality: does Fitts's law hold in motor imagery?. Behavioural brain research, 72(1-2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(96)00141-6

Fazeli, D., & Moradi, N. (2019). The Effect of Different Methods of Practice a Pre-Performance Routine on Mental Representation and Performance Levels of Volleyball Overhand Float-Serve. Sport Psychology Studies, 8(29), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.22089/SPSYJ.2019.7153.1762 (In Persian)

Fazeli, D., Taheri, H., Saberi Kakhki, A., & Shakeri Chenari, F. (2023). Effect of physical and mental practice on variability of movement coordination and smoothness. Motor Behavior. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2023.13689.2059 (In Persian)

Fazeli, D., Taheri, H., & Kakhki, A. S. (2021). Utilizing the variability of practice in physical execution, action observation, and motor imagery: similar or dissimilar mechanisms?. Motor Control, 25(2), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2020-0021

Frank, C., Kim, T., & Schack, T. (2018). Observational practice promotes action-related order formation in long-term memory: Investigating action observation and the development of cognitive representation in complex motor action. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 6(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2017-0007

Frank, C., Land, W. M., Popp, C., & Schack, T. (2014). Mental representation and mental practice: experimental investigation on the functional links between motor memory and motor imagery. PloS one, 9(4), e95175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095175

Gentili, R., Han, C. E., Schweighofer, N., & Papaxanthis, C. (2010). Motor learning without doing: trial-by-trial improvement in motor performance during mental training. Journal of neurophysiology, 104(2), 774-783. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00257.2010

Grosjean, M., Shiffrar, M., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Fitts's law holds for action perception. Psychological Science, 18(2), 95-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01854

Gruetzmacher, N., Panzer, S., Blandin, Y., & Shea, C. H. (2011). Observation and physical practice: Coding of simple motor sequences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1111-1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.543286

Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and brain sciences, 27(3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000093

Guillot, A., & Collet, C. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: a review. Journal of motor behavior, 37(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.37.1.10-20

Holmes, P., & Calmels, C. (2008). A neuroscientific review of imagery and observation use in sport. Journal of motor behavior, 40(5), 433-445. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.40.5.433-445

Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage, 14(1), S103-S109. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832

Kelly, S. W., Burton, A. M., Riedel, B., & Lynch, E. (2003). Sequence learning by action and observation: Evidence for separate mechanisms. British journal of psychology, 94(3), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603767876271

Kilteni, K., Andersson, B. J., Houborg, C., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2018). Motor imagery involves predicting the sensory consequences of the imagined movement. Nature communications, 9(1), 1617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03989-0

Kim, T., Frank, C., & Schack, T. (2017). A systematic investigation of the effect of action observation training and motor imagery training on the development of mental representation structure and skill performance. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 499.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00499

Krigolson, O., Van Gyn, G., Tremblay, L., & Heath, M. (2006). Is there" feedback" during visual imagery? Evidence from a specificity of practice paradigm. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 60(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1037/cjep2006004

Larssen, B. C., Ong, N. T., & Hodges, N. J. (2012). Watch and learn: seeing is better than doing when acquiring consecutive motor tasks. PloS one, 7(6), e38938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038938

Magill, R., & Anderson, D. I. (2017). Motor learning and control. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Mohammed Suberi, N. A., Razman, R., & Callow, N. (2017). Does Imagery Facilitate a Reduction in Movement Variability in a Targeting Task?. In 3rd International Conference on Movement, Health and Exercise: Engineering Olympic Success: From Theory to Practice 3 (pp. 148-151). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3737-5_31

Newell, K. M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition. Annual review of psychology, 42(1), 213-237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.001241

O'Dwyer, N., Rattanaprasert, U., & Smith, R. (2001). Quantification of coordination in human walking. From Basic Motor Control to Functional Recovery II. Sofia: Academic Publishing House, 107-119.

Ong, N. T., & Hodges, N. J. (2010). Absence of after-effects for observers after watching a visuomotor adaptation. Experimental Brain Research, 205, 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2366-4

Ong, N. T., Larssen, B. C., & Hodges, N. J. (2012). In the absence of physical practice, observation and imagery do not result in updating of internal models for aiming. Experimental brain research, 218, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2996-1

Owen, R., Wakefield, C. J., & Roberts, J. W. (2024). Online corrections can occur within movement imagery: An investigation of the motor-cognitive model. Human Movement Science, 95, 103222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2024.103222

Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R. G., & Lévesque, L. (1992). A sensorimotor basis for motor learning: Evidence indicating specificity of practice. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(3), 557-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401298

Roberts, J. W., Bennett, S. J., Elliott, D., & Hayes, S. J. (2014). Top-down and bottom-up processes during observation: Implications for motor learning. European journal of sport science, 14(sup1), S250-S256. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.686063

Ruffino, C., Truong, C., Dupont, W., Bouguila, F., Michel, C., Lebon, F., & Papaxanthis, C. (2021). Acquisition and consolidation processes following motor imagery practice. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81994-y

Ryan, E. D., & Simons, J. (1983). What is learned in mental practice of motor skills: A test of the cognitive-motor hypothesis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(4), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.5.4.419

Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2010). Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annual review of neuroscience, 33(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135

Sohrabi, M., Farsi, A. R., & Fuladian, J. (2010). Validation of the IRANIAN translation of the movement imagery questionnaire-revised. No. (5), 13-23. (In Persian)

Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current biology : CB, 11(18), R729–R732. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00432-8

Wong, L., Manson, G. A., Tremblay, L., & Welsh, T. N. (2013). On the relationship between the execution, perception, and imagination of action. Behavioural brain research, 257, 242-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.09.045

رشد و یادگیری حرکتی ورزشی

مطالعۀ کینماتیکی سازوکارهای اجرای جسمانی، مشاهدۀ عمل و تصویرسازی ذهنی با استفاده از دستکاری بازخورد

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 17، شماره 2
تیر 1404
صفحه 43-59

مطالعۀ کینماتیکی سازوکارهای اجرای جسمانی، مشاهدۀ عمل و تصویرسازی ذهنی با استفاده از دستکاری بازخورد

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 17، شماره 2تیر 1404صفحه 43-59

دوره 17، شماره 2
تیر 1404
صفحه 43-59