Top

Gepubliceerd in:

12-09-2019 | Original Article

More bang for the buck: autonomy support increases muscular efficiency

Auteurs: Takehiro Iwatsuki, Hui-Ting Shih, Reza Abdollahipour, Gabriele Wulf

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2021

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether conditions that provide performers with a sense of autonomy, by giving them choices, would increase movement efficiency. We evaluated neuromuscular activation as a function of choice, using surface electromyography (EMG), during isometric force production. Participants (N = 16) were asked to perform plantar flexions at each of three target torques (80%, 50%, 20% of maximum voluntary contractions) under both choice and control conditions. In the choice condition, they were able to choose the order of target torques, whereas the order was pre-determined in the control condition. Results demonstrated that while similar torques were produced under both conditions, EMG activity was lower in the choice relative to the control condition. Thus, providing performers with a choice led to reduced neuromuscular activity, or an increase in movement efficiency. This finding is in line with the notion that autonomy support readies the motor system for task execution by contributing to the coupling of goals and actions (Wulf and Lewthwaite, Psychon Bull Rev 23:1382–1414, 2016).

vorige artikel Change deafness can be reduced, but not eliminated, using brief training interventions

volgende artikel Correction to: The test of both worlds: identifying feature binding and control processes in congruency sequence tasks by means of action dynamics

Aarts, H., Bijleveld, E., Dogge, M., Deelder, M., Schutter, D., & van Haren, N. E. M. (2012). Positive priming and intentional binding: Eye-blink rate predicts reward information effects on the sense of agency. Social Neuroscience, 7, 105–112.PubMed

Aarts, H., Custers, R., & Marien, H. (2008). Preparing and motivating behavior outside of awareness. Science, 319, 1639.PubMed

Aiken, C. A., Fairbrother, J. T., & Post, P. G. (2012). The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 338.PubMedPubMedCentral

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408–415.PubMed

Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Campos, T. (2012). Motor learning benefits of self-controlled practice in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Gait and Posture, 35, 601–605.PubMed

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge Academic.

Cresswell, A. G., Löscher, W. N., & Thorstensson, A. (1995). Influence of gastrocnemius muscle length on triceps surae torque development and electromyographic activity in man. Experimental Brain Research, 105, 283–290.PubMed

Csibra, G., Hernik, M., Mascaro, O., Tatone, D., & Lengyel, M. (2016). Statistical treatment of looking-time data. Developmental Psychology, 52, 521–536.PubMedPubMedCentral

de la Fuente-Fernández, R. (2009). The placebo-reward hypothesis: dopamine and the placebo effect. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 15S3, S72–S74.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Fiorio, M., Emadi Andani, M., Marotta, A., Classen, J., & Tinazzi, M. (2014). Placebo-induced changes in excitatory and inhibitory corticospinal circuits during motor performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 3993–4005.PubMedPubMedCentral

Foreman, K. B., Singer, M. L., Addison, O., Marcus, R. L., LaStayo, P. C., & Dibble, L. E. (2014). Effects of dopamine replacement therapy on lower extremity kinetics and kinematics during a rapid force production task in persons with Parkinson disease. Gait & Posture, 39, 638–640.

Geertsen, S. S., Kjaer, M., Pedersen, K. K., Petersen, T. H., Perez, M. A., & Nielsen, J. B. (2013). Central common drive to antagonistic ankle muscles in relation to short-term cocontraction training in nondancers and professional ballet dancers. Journal of Applied Physiology, 115, 1075–1081.PubMed

Halperin, I., Chapman, D. T., Martin, D. T., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2017). Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers. Psychological Research, 81, 1051–1058.PubMed

Hartman, J. M. (2007). Self-controlled use of a perceived physical assistance device during a balancing task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 1005–1016.PubMed

Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human Movement Science, 36, 190–198.PubMed

Hutchinson, J. C., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2008). The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 457–472.

Iwatsuki, T., Abdollahipour, R., Psotta, R., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2017). Autonomy facilitates repeated maximum force productions. Human Movement Science, 55, 264–268.PubMed

Iwatsuki, T., Navalta, J., & Wulf, G. (2019). Autonomy enhances running efficiency. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37, 685–691.PubMed

Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 269–279.PubMed

Jenkinson, N., & Brown, P. (2011). New insights into the relationship between dopamine, beta oscillations and motor function. Trends in Neurosciences, 34, 611–618.PubMed

Kalasountas, V., Reed, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2007). The effect of placebo-induced changes in expectancies on maximal force production in college students. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 116–124.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.PubMedPubMedCentral

Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2013). Self-determined, but not non-self-determined, motivation predicts activations in the anterior insular cortex: An fMRI study of personal agency. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 538–545.PubMed

Lemos, A., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2017). Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect, and motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 31, 28–34.

Lessa, H. T., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2015). Self-controlled practice benefits motor learning in older adults. Human Movement Science, 40, 372–380.PubMed

Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: The motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1383–1388.

Lidstone, S. C., Schlzer, M., Dinelle, K., Mak, E., Sossi, V., Ruth, T. J., et al. (2010). Effects of expectation on placebo induced dopamine release in Parkinson’s disease. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 857–865.PubMed

Lohse, K. R., Jones, M., Healy, A. F., & Sherwood, D. E. (2014). The role of attention in motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 930–948.

Lohse, K. R., & Sherwood, D. E. (2012). Thinking about muscles: The neuromuscular effects of attentional focus on accuracy and fatigue. Acta Psychologica, 140, 236–245.PubMed

Lohse, K. R., Sherwood, D. E., & Healy, A. F. (2010). How changing the focus of attention affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography in dart throwing. Human Movement Science, 29, 542–555.PubMed

Lohse, K. R., Sherwood, D. E., & Healy, A. F. (2011). Neuromuscular effects of shifting the focus of attention in a simple force production task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43, 173–184.PubMed

Marchant, D. C., Greig, M., & Scott, C. (2009). Attentional focusing instructions influence force production and muscular activity during isokinetic elbow flexions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 2358–2366.PubMed

McKay, B., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Nordin, A. (2015). The self: Your own worst enemy? A test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1910–1919.

Meadows, C. C., Gable, P. A., Lohse, K. R., & Miller, M. W. (2016). Motivation and motor cortical activity can independently affect motor performance. Neuroscience, 339, 174–179.PubMed

Menon, V. (2015). Salience network. In A. W. Toga (Ed.), Brain mapping: an encyclopedic reference (Vol. 2, pp. 597–611). London: Elsevier, Academic Press.

Milton, J., Solodkin, A., Hluštík, P., & Small, S. L. (2007). The mind of expert motor performance is cool and focused. NeuroImage, 35, 804–813.PubMed

Montes, J., Wulf, G., & Navalta, J. W. (2018). Maximal aerobic capacity can be increased by enhancing performers’ expectancies. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 58, 744–749.

Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.PubMed

Murayama, K., Izuma, K., Aoki, R., & Matsumoto, K. (2016). “Your Choice” motivates you in the brain: The emergence of autonomy neuroscience. Recent Developments in Neuroscience Research on Human Motivation, 19, 95–125.

Pascua, L. A. M., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2015). Additive benefits of external focus and enhanced performance expectancy for motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33, 58–66.PubMed

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300.PubMed

Post, P. G., Fairbrother, J. T., & Barros, J. A. C. (2011). Self-controlled amount of practice benefits learning of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 474–481.PubMed

Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.

Ste-Marie, D. M., Vertes, K. A., Law, B., & Rymal, A. M. (2013). Learner-controlled self-observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 556.PubMedPubMedCentral

Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 815–823.PubMed

Vance, J., Wulf, G., Töllner, T., McNevin, N., & Mercer, J. (2004). EMG activity as a function of the performer’s focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 450–459.PubMed

Weir, J. P., Wagner, L. L., & Housh, T. J. (1992). Linearity and reliability of the IEMG v torque relationship for the forearm flexors and leg extensors. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71, 283–287.PubMed

Wulf, G., & Adams, N. (2014). Small choices can enhance balance learning. Human Movement Science, 38, 235–240.PubMed

Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2015). External focus and autonomy support: Two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Human Movement Science, 40, 176–184.PubMed

Wulf, G., Dufek, J. S., Lozano, L., & Pettigrew, C. (2010). Increased jump height and reduced EMG activity with an external focus. Human Movement Science, 29(3), 440–448.PubMed

Wulf, G., Iwatsuki, T., Machin, B., Kellogg, J., Copeland, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2018). Lassoing skill through learner choice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 50, 285–292.PubMed

Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1382–1414.

Wulf, G., Raupach, M., & Pfeiffer, F. (2005). Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 107–111.PubMed

Wulf, G., & Toole, T. (1999). Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning: Benefits of a self-controlled practice schedule. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 265–272.PubMed

Zachry, T., Wulf, G., Mercer, J., & Bezodis, N. (2005). Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 304–309.PubMed

Titel: More bang for the buck: autonomy support increases muscular efficiency
Auteurs: Takehiro Iwatsuki
Hui-Ting Shih
Reza Abdollahipour
Gabriele Wulf
Publicatiedatum: 12-09-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01243-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2021

Conditional automaticity: interference effects on the implicit memory retrieval process

Screen size matches of familiar images are biased by canonical size, rather than showing a memory size effect

Defining pleasant touch stimuli: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Investigating limits of task prioritization in dual-tasking: evidence from the prioritized processing and the psychological refractory period paradigms

Relative contribution of pitch and brightness to the auditory kappa effect

Valence and ownership: object desirability influences self-prioritization