Dayane M. Pinho1
Guilherme M. Lage1,2
Herbert Ugrinowitsch3
Rodolfo N. Benda3
1Laboratório do Comportamento Humano (LACOH), Faculdades Unidas do Norte de Minas, Brasil.
2Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde (FCS), Universidade FUMEC, Brasil.
3Grupo de Estudo em Desenvolvimento e Aprendizagem Motora (GEDAM), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil.
]]>
Resumo
O efeito da complexidade da tarefa na direção da transferência bilateral em habilidades motoras seriadas foi investigado através de dois experimentos. Vinte participantes praticaram uma tarefa de menor complexidade (digitação de uma seqüência de teclas) no primeiro experimento, e outros vinte participantes praticaram uma tarefa de maior complexidade (posicionamento de bolas de tênis entre recipientes) no segundo experimento. A meta para ambas as tarefas foi executar os movimentos na maior velocidade possível. Em ambos os experimentos, os sujeitos foram designados aleatoriamente para: 1) grupo de sujeitos que praticou com a mão preferida e foi testado com a mão não-preferida (GMP) e outro grupo que praticou com a mão não-preferida e foi testado com a mão preferida (GMNP). Os experimentos constaram de pré-teste, aquisição e pós-teste. As análises entre o pré e o pós-teste indicaram que, independente da direção da transferência e complexidade da tarefa, os doisgrupos se beneficiaram da transferência bilateral, tanto em termos de desempenho quanto de consistência. A análise dos resultados entre o fim da aquisição e o pós-teste permitiu observar uma relação inversa entre a direção da transferência e complexidade da tarefa. Os resultados são discutidos em termos do tipo de processamento requerido nas tarefas.
Palavras-chave: aprendizagem motora, efeito de transferência, transferência bilateral, complexidade da tarefa
Abstract
Effect of task complexity in the bilateral transfer direction in serial motor skills
The effect of task complexity in the bilateral transfer direction in serial motor skills was investigated through two experiments. In the first, twenty participants performed a less complex task (typing a key sequence) and in the second, another group of twenty participants performed a more complex task (positioning). The goal in both tasks was to perform the movements as quickly as possible. In both experiments, the subjects were randomly assigned 1) to the group that practiced with the preferred hand (GPH) and was tested with the non-preferred hand or 2) to the group that practiced with the non-preferred hand (GNPH) and was tested with the preferred hand. The experiment phases consisted of pre-test, acquisition and post-test. The analysis between pre and post-test indicated that independently of the direction of bilateral transfer and task complexity, all groups had the benefits of bilateral transfer in terms of performance and consistency. The analysis between the end of acquisition and the post-test pointed out an inverse relation between the direction of transfer and task complexity. The results are discussed in terms of the kind of processing required in the tasks.
Key-words: motor learning, transfer effect, bilateral transfer, task complexity
]]> Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.
Full text only available in PDF format.
Referências
1. Bernstein N (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of movement. London: Oxford Press. [ Links ]
2. Byrd R, Gibson M, Gleason MH (1986). Bilateral transfer across ages 7 to 17 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills 62: 87-90.
3. Campbel DJ (1988). Task complexity: a review and analysis. Academy of Management Review 13: 40-52.
4. Hausmann M, Kirk LJ, Corballis PM (2004). Influence on task complexity on manual asymmetries. Cortex 40: 103-110.
5. Hicks RE, Gualtieri CT, Schroeder SR (1983). Cognitive and motor components of bilateral transfer. Journal of General Psychology 107: 277-281.
]]> 6. Inui N (2005). Lateralization of bilateral transfer of visuomotor information in right-handers and left-handers. Journal of Motor Behavior 37: 275-283.7. Kohl RM, Roencker DL (1980). Bilateral transfer as function of mental imagery. Journal of Motor Behavior 12: 197-206.
8. Kohl RM, Roencker DL (1983). Mechanism involvement during skill imagery. Journal of Motor Behavior 15: 179-190.
9. Kumar S, Mandal M (2005). Bilateral transfer of skill in left- and right-handers. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition 10: 345-352.
10. Lavrysen A, Helsen WF, Tremblay L, Elliott D, Adam JJ, Feys P, Buekers MJ (2003). The control of sequential aiming movements: the influence of practice and manual asymmetries on the one-target advantage. Cortex 39: 307-325.
11. Manoel EJ (2001). O diálogo no processo de aquisição de habilidade motoras. In: Guedes MGS (ed.). Aprendizagem motora: problemas e contextos. Lisboa: FMH edições.
12. Oldfield RC (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97-113.
13. Park J, Shea CH (2002). Effector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior 34: 253-270.
14. Passarotti AM, Banich MT, Sood RK, Wang JM (2002). A generalized role of interhemispheric interaction under attentionally demanding conditions: evidence from the auditory and tactile modality. Neuropsychologia 40: 1082-1096.
15. Puretz SL (1983). Bilateral transfer: the effects of practice on the transfer of complex dance movement patterns. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 54: 48-54.
]]> 16. Schmidt RA, Lee TD (1999).Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. Champaign: Human Kinetics.17. Taylor HG, Heilman KM (1980). Left-hemisphere motor dominance in righthanders. Cortex 16: 587-603.
18. Teixeira LA (2000). Timing and force components in bilateral transfer of learning. Brain and Cognition 44: 455-469.
19. Teixeira LA (2006). Intermanual transfer of timing control between tasks holding different levels of motor complexity. Laterality 11: 43-56.
20. Thut G, Cook NG, Regard N, Leenders KL, Haslband U, Landis T (1996). Intermanual transfer of proximal and distal motor engrams in humans. Experimental Brain Research 108: 321-327.
21. Tinazzi M, Zanette G (1998). Modulation of ipsilateral motor cortex in man during unimanual finger movements of different complexities. Neuroscience Letters 224: 121-124.
22. Turvey MT, Fitch HL, Tuller B (1982). The Bernstein perspective I: the problems of degree of freedom and context-conditioned variability. In: Kelso JA (ed.). Human motor behavior: an introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates.
23. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004). Limitations in interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations. Experimental Brain Research 155: 1-8.
24. Wrisberg CA (1993). Levels of performance skill. In: Singer RN, Murphey M, Tennant LK (eds.). Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
]]> Correspondência
Prof. Guilherme Lage
Universidade FUMEC / FCS - Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde
Departamento de Educação Física
Rua da Paisagem, 240 – Vila da Serra
Nova Lima – Minas Gerais, Brasil
CEP 34000-000
e-mail: menezeslage@gmail.com
]]>