Movement and Working Memory: Patterns and Positions in Space

1988 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary M. Smyth ◽  
Norma A. Pearson ◽  
Lindsay R. Pendleton

Five experiments are reported in which subjects were asked to remember short, visually presented sequences of whole body movement patterns, words, and spatial positions. The items were recalled in order in a memory span paradigm. During presentation of the items to be remembered subjects simply watched, or they carried out a concurrent activity involving articulatory suppression, movement to external spatial targets, or body-related movement. When the movement patterns to be remembered were familiar to subjects, movement span was not disrupted by articulatory suppression or movement to spatial targets but was disrupted by body-related movement. This movement suppression task, however, did not interfere with performance on a spatial span task or on verbal span. It is concluded that the memory for patterns of limb movement differs from memory for movement to spatial targets and that accounts of visuo-spatial processes in working memory involve the latter type of movement.

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 2925-2932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike van Diest ◽  
Jan Stegenga ◽  
Heinrich J. Wörtche ◽  
Klaas Postema ◽  
Gijsbertus J. Verkerke ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Waldez Gomes ◽  
Vishnu Radhakrishnan ◽  
Luigi Penco ◽  
Valerio Modugno ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Mouret ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e0134350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike van Diest ◽  
Jan Stegenga ◽  
Heinrich J. Wörtche ◽  
Jos B. T. M Roerdink ◽  
Gijsbertus J. Verkerke ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1683 ◽  
pp. 86-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Angel Guevara ◽  
Edwin Iván Cruz Paniagua ◽  
Marisela Hernández González ◽  
Ivett Karina Sandoval Carrillo ◽  
Mayra Linné Almanza Sepúlveda ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Cybele Raver ◽  
◽  
Clancy Blair ◽  
Michael Willoughby
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
Cezary Biele

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka ◽  
Kensuke Urimoto ◽  
Takayuki Murayama ◽  
Hiroshi Sekiya

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1117-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas L. Markström ◽  
Helena Grip ◽  
Lina Schelin ◽  
Charlotte K. Häger

Background: Atypical knee joint biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are common. It is, however, unclear whether knee robustness (ability to tolerate perturbation and maintain joint configuration) and whole body movement strategies are compromised after ACLR. Purpose: To investigate landing control after ACLR with regard to dynamic knee robustness and whole body movement strategies during sports-mimicking side hops, and to evaluate functional performance of hop tests and knee strength. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: An 8-camera motion capture system and 2 synchronized force plates were used to calculate joint angles and moments during standardized rebound side-hop landings performed by 32 individuals with an ACL-reconstructed knee (ACLR group; median, 16.0 months after reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft [interquartile range, 35.2 months]) and 32 matched asymptomatic controls (CTRL). Dynamic knee robustness was quantified using a finite helical axis approach, providing discrete values quantifying divergence of knee joint movements from flexion-extension (higher relative frontal and/or transverse plane motion equaled lower robustness) during momentary helical rotation intervals of 10°. Multivariate analyses of movement strategies included trunk, hip, and knee angles at initial contact and during landing and hip and knee peak moments during landing, comparing ACLR and CTRL, as well as legs within groups. Results: Knee robustness was lower for the first 10° motion interval after initial contact and then successively stabilized for both groups and legs. When landing with the injured leg, the ACLR group, as compared with the contralateral leg and/or CTRL, demonstrated significantly greater flexion of the trunk, hip, and knee; greater hip flexion moment; less knee flexion moment; and smaller angle but greater moment of knee internal rotation. The ACLR group also had lower but acceptable hop and strength performances (ratios to noninjured leg >90%) except for knee flexion strength (12% deficit). Conclusion: Knee robustness was not affected by ACLR during side-hop landings, but alterations in movement strategies were seen for the trunk, hip, and knee, as well as long-term deficits in knee flexion strength. Clinical Relevance: Knee robustness is lowest immediately after landing for both the ACLR group and the CTRL and should be targeted in training to reduce knee injury risk. Assessment of movement strategies during side-hop landings after ACLR should consider a whole body approach.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1260-1271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akito Miura ◽  
Kazutoshi Kudo ◽  
Tatsuyuki Ohtsuki ◽  
Hiroaki Kanehisa

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document