The relationship between smoothness and performance during the practice of a lower limb obstacle avoidance task

The relationship between performance (movement time) and smoothness was examined as subjects (n = 8) practiced a simple lower limb obstacle avoidance task. Smoothness was quantified by endpoint 3D jerk-cost, partitioned into magnitudinal and directional components. Data were collected with two WATSMART cameras at a sampling rate of 200 Hz for three sets of two trial blocks, including trials 1, 2, 13, 14, 25, and 26. Ten practice trials were performed between blocks of recorded trials. A DLT method was used to reconstruct 3D position coordinates of the fifth metatarsal of the subject's right (dominant) foot, considered to be the endpoint. After the data were smoothed with a fourth order, zero lag Butterworth filter, the time period was normalized so that a comparison of jerk-cost could be made between trials.Very rapid decreases in both movement time and jerk-cost measures were followed by gradual decreases, indicating that the movement became smoother as performance improved. Correlation coefficients between movement time and the various components of jerkcost ranged from 0.70 to 0.78, supporting the hypothesis that moving more smoothly enables a person to move more rapidly during an obstacle avoidance task.

[1]  Tamar Flash,et al.  The Organization of Human Arm Trajectory Control , 1990 .

[2]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[3]  R. Zernicke,et al.  Jerk-cost modulations during the practice of rapid arm movements , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[4]  N Hogan,et al.  Planning and execution of multijoint movements. , 1988, Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[5]  N. Hogan An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[7]  J. M. Hollerbach,et al.  Deducing planning variables from experimental arm trajectories: Pitfalls and possibilities , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[8]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Learning arm kinematics and dynamics. , 1989, Annual review of neuroscience.

[9]  R. P. Wells,et al.  Assessment of signal and noise in the kinematics of normal, pathological and sporting gaits. , 1980 .

[10]  W. L. Nelson Physical principles for economies of skilled movements , 1983, Biological Cybernetics.

[11]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Controlling multijoint motor behavior. , 1987, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.