The Role of Motor Learning in Spatial Adaptation near a Tool

Some visual-tactile (bimodal) cells have visual receptive fields (vRFs) that overlap and extend moderately beyond the skin of the hand. Neurophysiological evidence suggests, however, that a vRF will grow to encompass a hand-held tool following active tool use but not after passive holding. Why does active tool use, and not passive holding, lead to spatial adaptation near a tool? We asked whether spatial adaptation could be the result of motor or visual experience with the tool, and we distinguished between these alternatives by isolating motor from visual experience with the tool. Participants learned to use a novel, weighted tool. The active training group received both motor and visual experience with the tool, the passive training group received visual experience with the tool, but no motor experience, and finally, a no-training control group received neither visual nor motor experience using the tool. After training, we used a cueing paradigm to measure how quickly participants detected targets, varying whether the tool was placed near or far from the target display. Only the active training group detected targets more quickly when the tool was placed near, rather than far, from the target display. This effect of tool location was not present for either the passive-training or control groups. These results suggest that motor learning influences how visual space around the tool is represented

A little less conversation; a little more (relational) action please. A fictional dialogue of integrating theory into coaching practice

This paper presents a fictional dialogue that supports the application of theory in coaching pedagogy. The “constraints led approach” (CLA) is promoted throughout in conversation form, providing pedagogic solutions in response to the decaying performance levels of a fictitious football team. This deterioration is linked to “poor” coaching and the merits of a more innovative pedagogy through a discussion between “manager” and “coach” are presented. Recommendations are made with particular reference to developing games players, who are skilful, perceptive and intelligent, through being able to initiate and modify actions in dynamic contexts. Through substantiating a platform for both changing perceptions about coaching practice and challenging assumptions about learning, such accessibility to unfamiliar knowledge(s) can allow coaches to clearly consider possibilities for change. It is further suggested that through embracing the use of novel methodologies to consider unfamiliar theoretical territory, this demonstrates a responsibility to close and not widen a theory-practice gap. By presenting Mark (coach) as “theoretical negotiator”, this paper emphasises the potency of experimenting with nuanced methods that can be part of an academic process to help shape more theoretically literate coaches

The Cognitive Underpinnings of Option Generation in Everyday Life Decision‐Making: A Latent Variable Analysis

The ability to generate options for action is crucial for everyday life decision‐making. In this article, we propose and test a model of the cognitive underpinnings of option generation in everyday life situations. We carried out a laboratory study using measures of a wide range of cognitive functions and asked participants (N = 157) to generate options for actions for different everyday life decision‐making scenarios. The results of a latent variable analysis show that the cognitive underpinnings of option generation are consistent across different everyday life situations and, hence, option generation can be conceptualized as a general construct. Moreover, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis reveal that, when controlling for the shared variance among the cognitive processes assessed, verbal fluency, working memory capacity, ideation fluency, and processing speed predicted option generation. These findings suggest that option generation in everyday life situations can be distinguished from other cognitive constructs, such as divergent thinking (in terms of ideas’ originality) and long‐term memory