Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (37) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (29)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (37)
Keywords
- Aufmerksamkeit (1)
- Balance (1)
- Bewegungsanalyse (1)
- Bewegungssteuerung (1)
- Gleichgewicht (1)
- Intelligenz (1)
- Kind (1)
- Knotenpunkte (1)
- Kognition (1)
- Leistungsdruck (1)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (37) (remove)
Fußball in der DDR
(2006)
Einleitung
(2006)
Burnout unvermeidlich?
(2006)
Functional gait development in children is discussed controversially. Differentiated information about the roll- over process of the foot, represented by the "Center of Pressure" (COP), are still missing. The purpose of the study was the validation of the COP-path to quantify the functional gait development of children. Plantar pressure distribution was measured barefoot with an individual speed on a walkway (tartan) - in 255 children aged between 2 and 15 years. The medial and lateral area enclosed between the COP-path and the bisection of plantar angle (A(med), A(lat), Sigma: A(ml)) was calculated from plantar pressure data. Furthermore, the duration of the COP-path in the heel (COPtimeF), midfoot (COPtimeM) and forefoot (COPtimeV) was analysed. The load distribution under the medial and lateral forefoot was also calculated. The variation coefficient (VC) was calculated as a measure of interindividual variability. The medio-lateral divergency of the COP (Aml) initially decreases with advancing age (-20.2%), followed by a continuous increase (+27.2%). No changes in VC (A(med), A(lat), and A(ml)) appeared during age-related development. COPtimeM remains constant in all children over time. In contrast to COPtimeM, Cop(time)F decreases from youngest to oldest children (-31.0%), and COPtimeV increases (+41.7%). After initial descent up to 8 years of age, VC (COPtimeF, COPtimeM, COPtimeV) remains constant. The mediolateral load under the forefoot did not change. The COP-Path is able to characterise the functional gait development of children. VC values indicate high individual variability of gait pattern. In this context, age-based standard values should be critically discussed
When top sports performers fail or “choke” under pressure, everyone asks: why? Research has identified a number of conditions (e.g. an audience) that elicit choking and that moderate (e.g. trait-anxiety) pressure – performance relation. Furthermore, mediating processes have been investigated. For example, explicit monitoring theories link performance failure under psychological stress to an increase in attention paid to a skill and its step-by-step execution (Beilock & Carr, 2001). Many studies have provided support for these ideas. However, so far only overt performance measures have been investigated which do not allow more thorough analyses of processes or performance strategies. But also a theoretical framework has been missing, that could (a) explain the effects of explicit monitoring on skill execution and that (b) makes predictions as to what is being monitored during execution. Consequently in this study, the nodalpoint hypothesis of motor control (Hossner & Ehrlenspiel, 2006) was taken to predict movement changes on three levels of analysis at certain “nodalpoints” within the movement sequence. Performance in two different laboratory tasks was assessed with respect to overt performance (the observable result, for example accuracy in the target), covert performance (description of movement execution, for example the acceleration of body segements) and task exploitation (the utilization of task properties such as covariation). A fake competition (see Beilock & Carr, 2002) was used to invoke pressure. In study 1 a ball bouncing task in a virtual-reality set-up was chosen. Previous studies (de Rugy, Wei, Müller, & Sternad, 2003) have shown that learners are usually able to “passively” exploit the dynamical stability of the system. According to explicit monitoring theories, choking should be expected either if the task itself evokes an “active control” (Experiment 1) or if learners are provided with explicit instructions (Experiment 2). In both experiments, participants first went through a practice phase on day 1. On day 2, following the Baseline Test participants were divided into a High-Stress or No-Stress Group for the final Performance Test. The High-Stress Group entered a fake competition. Overt performance was measured by the Absolute Error (AE) of ball amplitudes from target height; covert performance was measured by Period Modulation between successive hits and task exploitation was measured by Acceleration (AC) at ball-racket impact and Covariation (COV) of impact parameters. To evoke active control in Exp. 1 (N=20), perturbations to the ball flight were introduced. In Exp. 2 (N=39) half of the participants received explicit skill-focused instructions during learning. For overt performance, results generally show an interaction between Stress Group and Test, with better performance (i. e. lower AE) for the High-Stress group in the final Performance Test. This effect is also independent of the Instructions that participants had received during learning (Exp. 2). Similar effects were found for COV but not for AC. In study 2 a visuomotor tracking task in which participants had to pursuit a target cross that was moving on an invisible curve. This curve consisted of 3 segments of 6 turning points sequentially ordered around the x-axis. Participants learned two short movement sequences which were then concatenated to form a single sequence. It was expected that under pressure, this sequence should “fall apart” at the point of concatenation. Overt Performance was assessed by the Root Mean Square Error between target and pursuit cross as well as the Absolute Error at the turning points, covert performance was measured by the Latency from target to pursuit turning and task exploitation was measured by the temporal covariation between successive intervals between turning points. Experiment 3 (intraindividual variation) as well as Experiment 4 (interindividual variation) show performance enhancement in the pressure situation on the overt level with matching results on covert and task exploitation level. Thus, contrary to previous studies, no choking under pressure was found in any of the experiments. This may be interpreted as a failure in the experimental manipulation. But certainly also important characteristics of the task are highlighted. Choking should occur in tasks where performers do not have the time to use action or thought control strategies, that are more relevant to their “self” and that are discrete in nature.