پژوهش در مدیریت ورزشی و رفتار حرکتی

مکانیزم‌های پیش‌بین درهماهنگی بین‌فردی بازیکنان نخبه طناب‌زنی

مقالات آماده انتشار

نویسندگان

سارا باقری 1
مهدی شهبازی 2
فضل اله باقرزاده 2

1 دانشگاه فرهنگیان- پردیس نسیبه

2 دانشگاه تهران، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی

چکیده
افراد برای اجرای تکالیف مشترک، نیاز به هماهنگی دارند و هدف یکسانی را دنبال می‌کنند. هدف این پژوهش بررسی مکانیزم‌های پیش‌بین درهماهنگی بین‌فردی بازیکنان نخبه طناب‌زنی بود. روش پژوهش توصیفی و کاربردی بود و جامعه آماری را 24 بازیکن نخبه‌ طناب‌زنی (14 تا 18 سال) تشکیل دادند. شرکت‌کنند‌گان به مدت هشت هفته تکالیف مختلف طناب‌زنی (طناب­زدن انفرادی و دونفره در مسافت­های یکسان یا متفاوت با فرود همزمان) را تا رسیدن به اجرای صحیح و بدون بازخورد تمرین کردند. محقق برای ثبت سه­بعدی حرکات پای بازیکنان و طناب‌ها از دستگاه تحلیل­حرکتی وایکان استفاده ‌کرد و پارامترهای فضایی و زمانی را مورد بررسی قرار داد. نتایج t مستقل، تحلیل­واریانس با اندازه‌گیری‌های مکرر و تحلیل­واریانس یک‌راهه نشان داد: افراد در متغیرهای زمان ‌آغازحرکت، انحراف‌زمانی دست‌و‌پا، انحراف‌زمانی در چرخش طناب و نقطه‌فرود، همانند یکدیگر هستند (05/0 P>)، درحالی‌که بین ارتفاع پرش و زمان حرکت آن‌ها تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (05/0 P≤). بدین­ترتیب بازیکنان برای هماهنگ­شدن با هم در تکالیف مختلف، حرکت یکدیگر را شبیه­سازی می­کنند و سهم تلاش آن­ها برای هماهنگ شدن، ربطی به ویژگی‌های تکلیف ندارد. در واقع با افزایش دشواری و تقاضای تکلیف مشترک، میزان هماهنگی بین‌فردی و به تبع آن توانایی پیش‌بینی افراد افزایش می‌یابد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

پیش‌بینی
هماهنگی بین‌فردی
سهم تلاش
طناب زنی

عنوان مقاله English

Predictive mechanisms in interpersonal coordination among elite rope jumping players

نویسنده English

Sara Bagheri 1
1 Farhangian University
چکیده English

People need coordination to accomplish joint tasks and pursue the same goal. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive mechanisms in interpersonal coordination among elite rope jumping players. The research strategy was descriptive and applied and the statistical community consisted of 24 elite rope jumping players (14 to 18 years old). Subjects practiced various rope jumping tasks (individual and joint rope jumping at the same or different distances with online landing) for eight weeks until they could do them properly and without online feedback. The researcher used a Vicon motion analysis device to record three-dimensional movements of players' feet and ropes whirling and examined spatial and temporal parameters. The results of independent t-test, repeated measures ANOVA and one-way ANOVA showed that people were similar each other in movement onset time, hand-foot deviation time, timing variation in rope whirling, and landing position (P> 0.05), while a significant difference was observed in their jump height and movement time. So, players simulate each other's movements to coordinate with each other in different tasks, and their efforts distribution doesn't related to task characteristics. In fact increasing difficulty as well demand of joint task, amount of interpersonal coordination and consequently prediction ability will increase.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Prediction
Interpersonal Coordination
Effort Distribution
Rope Jumping
1. Magill RA. Motor learning and control. Concepts and Applications2011.
2. Shumway-Cook A. Motor Control, Translating Research into Clinical Practice2010.
3. Schmidt RC, Richardson MJ. Dynamics of interpersonal coordination. Coordination: Neural, behavioral and social dynamics: Springer; 2008. p. 281-308.
4. WH E. Motor learning and control: from theory to practice. Cengage Learning2010.
5. Heyrani A RM, Amirvazini T, Souri Z. . The relationship among perceived motivational climate and performance of elite and non-elite athletes in reaction time, prediction and bilateral coordination tests. Motor behavior and sports psychology. 2013:543-51.
6. Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR. Motor prediction. Current biology. 2001;11(18):R729-R32.
7. Wilson M, Knoblich G. The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological bulletin. 2005;131(3):460.
8. Konvalinka I, Vuust P, Roepstorff A, Frith CD. Follow you, follow me: continuous mutual prediction and adaptation in joint tapping. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. 2010;63(11):2220-30.
9. Colling LJ, Thompson WF, Sutton J. Mechanisms for action prediction operate differently in observers with motor experience. bioRxiv. 2016:044438.
10. Ellamil M, Berson J, Wong J, Buckley L, Margulies DS. One in the dance: musical correlates of group synchrony in a real-world club environment. PloS one. 2016;11(10).
11. Wiltermuth SS, Heath C. Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological science. 2009;20(1):1-5.
12. Richardson DC, Dale R, Kirkham NZ. The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological science. 2007;18(5):407-13.
13. Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G. Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2006;10(2):70-6.
14. Vesper C, Abramova E, Bütepage J, Ciardo F, Crossey B, Effenberg A, et al. Joint action: mental representations, shared information and general mechanisms for coordinating with others. Frontiers in psychology. 2017;7:2039.
15. Stoffregen TA, Giveans MR, Villard S, Yank JR, Shockley K. Interpersonal postural coordination on rigid and non-rigid surfaces. Motor Control. 2009;13(4):471-83.
16. Dötsch D, Vesper C, Schubö A. How you move is what I see: Planning an action biases a partner’s visual search. Frontiers in psychology. 2017;8:77.
17. Oullier O, De Guzman GC, Jantzen KJ, Lagarde J, Scott Kelso J. Social coordination dynamics: Measuring human bonding. Social neuroscience. 2008;3(2):178-92.
18. van Ulzen NR, Lamoth CJ, Daffertshofer A, Semin GR, Beek PJ. Characteristics of instructed and uninstructed interpersonal coordination while walking side-by-side. Neuroscience letters. 2008;432(2):88-93.
19. Keller PE, Knoblich G, Repp BH. Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: on the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness and cognition. 2007;16(1):102-11.
20. Knoblich G, Jordan JS. Action coordination in groups and individuals: Learning anticipatory control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2003;29(5):1006.
21. Ramnani N, Miall RC. A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature neuroscience. 2004;7(1):85.
22. Sebanz N, Knoblich G. Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009;1(2):353-67.
23. Bolt NK, Loehr JD. The predictability of a partner’s actions modulates the sense of joint agency. Cognition. 2017;161:60-5.
24. Cross ES, Hamilton AFdC, Grafton ST. Building a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers. Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):1257-67.
25. Cross ES, Kraemer DJ, Hamilton AFdC, Kelley WM, Grafton ST. Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cerebral cortex. 2008;19(2):315-26.
26. Grezes J, Decety J. Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta‐analysis. Human brain mapping. 2001;12(1):1-19.
27. Vesper C, Knoblich G, Sebanz N. Our actions in my mind: motor imagery of joint action. Neuropsychologia. 2014;55:115-21.
28. Kilner JM, Paulignan Y, Blakemore S-J. An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current biology. 2003;13(6):522-5.
29. Guillot A, Collet C. Contribution from neurophysiological and psychological methods to the study of motor imagery. Brain Research Reviews. 2005;50(2):387-97.
30. Reed CL. Chronometric comparisons of imagery to action: Visualizing versus physically performing springboard dives. Memory & Cognition. 2002;30(8):1169-78.
31. Ramenzoni VC, Davis TJ, Riley MA, Shockley K, Baker AA. Joint action in a cooperative precision task: nested processes of intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Experimental brain research. 2011;211(3-4):447-57.
32. Zienkiewicz A, Barton D, Porfiri M, Di Bernardo M. Leadership emergence in a data-driven model of zebrafish shoals with speed modulation. The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 2015;224(17):3343-60.
33. Alderisio F, Fiore G, Salesse RN, Bardy BG, di Bernardo M. Interaction patterns and individual dynamics shape the way we move in synchrony. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1-10.
34. Vesper C, van der Wel RP, Knoblich G, Sebanz N. Making oneself predictable: Reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental brain research. 2011;211(3-4):517-30.
35. Kourtis D, Sebanz N, Knoblich G. Favouritism in the motor system: social interaction modulates action simulation. Biology Letters. 2010:rsbl20100478.
36. Wriessnegger SC, Steyrl D, Koschutnig K, Müller-Putz G. Cooperation in mind: Motor imagery of joint and single actions is represented in different brain areas. Brain and cognition. 2016;109:19-25.
37. Constable MD, Pratt J, Gozli DG, Welsh TN. Do you see what I see? Co-actor posture modulates visual processing in joint tasks. Visual Cognition. 2015;23(6):699-719.
38. Vesper C, van der Wel RP, Knoblich G, Sebanz N. Are you ready to jump? Predictive mechanisms in interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2013;39(1):48.
39. Duarte R, Travassos B, Araújo D, Richardson M. The influence of manipulating the defensive playing method on collective synchrony of football teams. Performance analysis of sport IX: Routledge; 2013. p. 91-6.
40. Vesper C, Butterfill S, Knoblich G, Sebanz N. A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks. 2010;23(8-9):998-1003.
41.Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
پژوهش در مدیریت ورزشی و رفتار حرکتی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از 01 آبان 1399