Explaining the Alexander Technique to clinicians and scientists: Psycho-physical re-education - an introduction to cognitive-motor system-level causes of performance-related problems.

This presentation considers the scientific basis of the Alexander Technique, and presents results of experimental research into Alexander teaching methodology. The Alexander Technique, is an educational process with a scientific basis. The efficacy of the Technique is explained by a general mechanism which underlies many problems. Injury and dysfunction, with specific musculoskeletal and cognitive symptoms, can arise from misconception, the rules of neuromuscular function, lack of awareness and reinforcement (wind-up) of symptoms. Within a perception-selection-action feedback loop, misconception and lack of awareness of the consequences of maladaptive selection, ensures that these consequences are subject to destructive (positive) feedback, until the system “breaks” at the individual’s weakest point (http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6CN7R). This presentation provides system-level process diagrams to define the concepts of “use” and “misuse” in terms of a perception-selection-action feedback loop. “Use” is the concurrent processes of sensory analysis, response selection, motor generation and movement biomechanics acting simultaneously, and adapting through time according to their input. “Misuse” is the suboptimal processes of sensory analysis, response selection, motor generation and movement biomechanics amplified by misconception of the resulting feedback. The Alexander Technique brings about change by external, educational input into perception, and inhibition of automated responses. Practice is based on understanding the importance of the neck in regulating sensory-motor control. Problems within the domain of the Technique are associated with a pattern of movement and muscle tension that can be observed. Students are taught to observe that pattern and to use their observations as a training signal to regulate their thought and activity, and to prevent problems from occurring

Chronic profession-limiting problems in musicians: Underlying mechanisms and neuroplastic routes to recovery

Musicians are subject to a wide range of medical and performance problems related to the physical and psychological demands of their profession. Such problems are usually diagnosed and treated in relation to a specific cause, for example direct treatment to reduce inflammation. While holistic factors are increasingly acknowledged, currently lacking is a mechanistic understanding of how cognitive, physiological and mechanical factors combine to cause specific symptoms. This thesis provides a conceptual explanation and experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that most specific symptoms arise from a common general mechanism. The first section “Review of Literature” provides a general, mechanistic explanation of how injury and dysfunction can arise from misconception, the rules of neuromuscular function, lack of awareness and reinforcement (wind-up) of symptoms. Within a perception-selection-action feedback loop, misconception and lack of awareness of the consequences of maladaptive selection, ensures consequences are subject to destructive (positive) feedback, until the system “breaks” at the individual’s weakest point. This hypothesis suggests that a general solution lies in educational feedback and inhibitory action to break the loop at the point of selection. The second section presents an experimental study (i) to establish whether in playing, violinists and violists exhibit a common diagnosable musculokinematic pattern unnecessary for performance, and (ii) to test a methodology for revealing and reducing that pattern in individuals. Full-body, kinematic and electromyographical data showed that external feedback (ultrasound feedback of the neck muscles and verbal feedback of movement) resulted in progressive reductions in the extent to which a common musculokinematic pattern was exhibited. Differences were characterised by reductions in muscle activities and key movements, associated with performance limiting problems and injury

THE ECOLOGICAL FACTORS GOVERNING THE PERSISTENCE OF BUTTERFLIES IN URBAN AREAS

Previous studies have suggested that availability of high quality habitat rather than habitat connectivity or species mobility was the limiting factor in the distribution of grassland butterflies, but were mostly undertaken on specialist species in rural areas. Consequently, this project tests the hypothesis that the quality of available habitat is more important than patch size or connectivity to the persistence of four grassland butterfly species in the West Midlands conurbation. Two of the study species are widespread (Polyommatus icarus and Coenonympha pamphilus) whilst two have a more restricted distribution (Erynnis tages and Callophrys rubi). However, unlike species with very specific requirements, all are polyphagous and can tolerate a wide range of conditions, making habitat quality difficult to quantify. Several means of assessing habitat quality were developed and tested. A detailed vegetation quadrat sampling method had the best predictive abilities for patch occupancy and summarised the habitat preferences within the urban context. A model based upon habitat quality and connectivity was devised, with the ability to rank each patch according to potential suitability for each species. For all four species, habitat quality accounted significantly for the greatest variance in distribution. Connectivity had only a small significant effect whilst patch area had almost none. This suggests that conservation efforts should be centred upon preserving and improving habitat quality

A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens

The human population is increasingly disconnected from nature due to urbanisation. To counteract this phenomenon, the UK government has been actively promoting wildlife gardening. However, the extent to which such activities are conducted and the level of resource provision for biodiversity (e.g., food and nesting sites) within domestic gardens remains poorly documented. Here we generate estimates for a selection of key resources provided within gardens at a national scale, using 12 survey datasets gathered across the UK. We estimate that 22.7 million households (87% of homes) have access to a garden. Average garden SiZe is 190 m(2), extrapolating to a total area of 432,924 ha. Although substantial, this coverage is still an order of magnitude less than that of statutory protected areas. Approximately 12.6 million (48%) households provide supplementary food for birds, 7.4 million of which specifically use bird feeders. Similarly, there are a minimum of 4.7 million nest boxes within gardens. These figures equate to one bird feeder for every nine potentially feeder-using birds in the UK, and at least one nest box for every six breeding pairs of cavity nesting birds. Gardens also contain 2.5-3.5 million ponds and 28.7 million trees, which is just under a quarter of all trees occurring outside woodlands. Ongoing urbanisation, characterised by increased housing densities, is inevitable throughout the UK and elsewhere. The important contribution domestic gardens make to the green space infrastructure in residential areas must be acknowledged, as their reduction will impact biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the well-being of the human population

Household Factors Influencing Participation in Bird Feeding Activity: A National Scale Analysis

Ameliorating pressures on the ecological condition of the wider landscape outside of protected areas is a key focus of conservation initiatives in the developed world. In highly urbanized nations, domestic gardens can play a significant role in maintaining biodiversity and facilitating human-wildlife interactions, which benefit personal and societal health and well-being. The extent to which sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with engagement in wildlife gardening activities remain largely unresolved. Using two household-level survey datasets gathered from across Britain, we determine whether and how the socioeconomic background of a household influences participation in food provision for wild birds, the most popular and widespread form of human-wildlife interaction. A majority of households feed birds (64% across rural and urban areas in England, and 53% within five British study cities). House type, household size and the age of the head of the household were all important predictors of bird feeding, whereas gross annual household income, the occupation of the head of the household, and whether the house is owned or rented were not. In both surveys, the prevalence of bird feeding rose as house type became more detached and as the age of the head of the household increased. A clear, consistent pattern between households of varying size was less evident. When regularity of food provision was examined in the study cities, just 29% of households provided food at least once a week. The proportion of households regularly feeding birds was positively related to the age of the head of the household, but declined with gross annual income. As concerns grow about the lack of engagement between people and the natural environment, such findings are important if conservation organizations are successfully to promote public participation in wildlife gardening specifically and environmentally beneficial behaviour in society more generally

The location of the five British cities (E, Edinburgh; G, Glasgow; L, Leicester; O, Oxford; S, Sheffield) sampled during the CityForm survey, the data from which were subsequently used to investigate whether and how the socioeconomic and sociodemographic background of a household influences participation in wild bird feeding activity.

<p>The location of the five British cities (E, Edinburgh; G, Glasgow; L, Leicester; O, Oxford; S, Sheffield) sampled during the CityForm survey, the data from which were subsequently used to investigate whether and how the socioeconomic and sociodemographic background of a household influences participation in wild bird feeding activity.</p

Analysis of deviance models (GLM with binomial errors and logit link function) used to detect differences between the proportions of households providing food for birds across household characteristic categories, within the Survey for English Housing (SEH) and CityForm questionnaire.

<p>Analysis of deviance models (GLM with binomial errors and logit link function) used to detect differences between the proportions of households providing food for birds across household characteristic categories, within the Survey for English Housing (SEH) and CityForm questionnaire.</p

The proportion of households recorded within the CityForm questionnaire that regularly (i.e., at least once a week) provided food for birds in the outside space associated with their dwelling, for the two household characteristics that were found to be significant predictors of participation in regular bird feeding activity: (i) <i>Age of Householder</i>, and; (ii) <i>Gross Annual Household Income</i>.

<p>Letters denote, within each household characteristic dataset, which categories have significantly different proportions of households feeding birds.</p