Hudson, J.L.

Strohmeyer, H.S.

English

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive

INTERCEPTION AND INTERSEGMENTAL COORDINATION: EFFECTS OF PRACTICE H. S. Strohrneyer and J. L. Hudson University of North Carolina at Greensboro, NC USA There is general agreement that highly skilled throwers and strikers employ a sequential pattern of intersegmental coordination (Bunn. 1972: Kreighbaum & Barthels, 1990; Morehouse & Cooper. 1950). That is."movementsproceed from base to fire end. from proximal to distal" (Kreighbaum & Barthels. 1990) and "each [distal] segment comes forward as the movement of its proximal segment reaches its greatest angular velocity" (Kreighbaum & Barthels, 1990). There is little agreement, however, concern- ing the coordination of less skilled throwers and strikers. According to Kreighbaum and Barthels, novice or immature performers typically display simultaneous or nearly simultaneous patterns of coordination (i.e., proximal and distal segments contribute to the movement at about the same time). In addition to the "optimal" sequential pattern of coordination. Morehouse and Cooper described two sub-optimal sequential patterns: the "early" pattern (i.e.. distal segments initiate forward movement before proximal segmentsreach peakangular velocity) and the"lateW pauern (i.e.. distal segmentsinitiate forward movement after proximal segments reach peak angular velocity). Further, Morehouse and Cooper stated that "hurrying the action is more detrimental to perfor- mance" and "beginners usually have the fault of omitting some [segments]" . Finally, Bunn (1972) hypothesized that "jerky movement instead of smooth rhythmic action" was associated with diminished effectiveness in throwing. Interestingly. none of these biomechanists addressed the contextual differences between throwing which is a closed skill (e.g.. releasing a light object for high velocity) and striking which is an open skill (e.g.. intercepting and propelling a light object for high velocity). Given that interception is a crucial component of many sports. the purpose of this study was to address the following questions: What pattern of coordination do smooth, sequential throwers exhibit in an unfamiliar interception task? How does this pattern of coordination c hangc with practice? METHODOLOGY The interception task for this study was the badminton smash. In contextual terms, this task is open (i.e., the performer does not control the direction or speed of the oncoming shuttle), the racket is light, the velocity demands are high. and the accuracy 'osw -iu!oCmoqla all) ie sem D!mla~ mlnSue isal& all) pue I@ms sem uogom jo aSw all) 'Wa~o '0qaafi y anb~uqw Bu!qsems ~!Ses e paeqsuomap os@ ixdqns -oauo3 ie uell) i~wuo3 ialp pue qaq m1sej Su!xaw sem JS~M aq inq ',,pmydo,, sem isum pue iap1noqs aq jo Syq au 'ow jo ioi3ej e Lq ~qi3u! D~mla~ iplnoqs aqI pus 'snopqo ssal sem pea1 moqla aq 'uoylppe u1 'iaplnoqs all) ie uop3nppe aslamma iuaredde alum sem =all) inq 'sluamaAom @n@es Lpueu!mopa~d asn OI panuguo:, 1 ~~[qns 'mgmd jo qaam ns ialw 'i@!ls aq 01 panaide iaplnoqs all) jo uopnqguo3 all) 'Ai!mlar\ n?lnSue @qu!w a! uo pasea 1x1~03 mu pa@ prre uo!s~ndard Suyp payo~u! A~snoaurzlpqs =am wqot moqla pue ispn qoq '8!30la~ moqla ueq ia- sem Li!mla~ 1s- qSnoqw -S~SSel lalsqspn aq pue Sulpeal moqla aq anb~uqw Suqys aueld ~JI!SES e pabldma 1 idqns 'aagserd aiojaa -1 amB!g u! pinuasad q uo~ssas iadlm[qns lad py auo Lpo 'uo~ssas isal ua~!S e UI ixdqns ua~@ e ioj spa imq ow aq uaamiaq a3uaajJIp 3gemaq apul sem aaq sv NOISSR3SIa aNV SJ7RS321 -pazA@ue aiam qunq pue moqIa all) jo auamaAom 'spy uya3 mj '0q-v .IS!.JM pue mppoqs all) jo sqd a~~slndcud all) uaamiaq dqsuope~a~ q uray payuualapsem uopeypoo~jo waned atu 'Su!mx! puea~g!sod sem D!mla~ mlnSue ieq amg aq sv pauyap ssm iu!oCqm ioj aseqd a~!slndoid au 'malsLs iuawamsr?a~ uonom (32 mueuuopad yv3d e %u!sn paqnsp =am isp pue iappoqs aq jo D~mlarl qn8~1-v .spunoqjo ino m y qsems aqjo iuaruaxld all) pue q303apnqs aq jo D!mla~ pue alSue~mrl[nsaaql Lq pauruuaiap sem qsems qsmjo ssaua~gmgq .s!sL@lre mj uasoq3 =am uo~ssas ~ugm q3ea mag spq (a~gmga isom *-as!) ~saq om1 au ' paSeSua lannqs paads qS!q puom 0001/19 ~I!M cram oapp s~oseusd sSursn ap!s iqSu ay] may palmnos =am wep au 'leanl, lal3e.1 all) pue 'wu!o~isp~ prre 'moqIa 'iaplnoqs 'd!q aq ~e pauoy~sod adw aAgmU= ~I!M paqxm aram wyod pua puaur%ag .pamo~loj sem loxoard @uo!suamlp-om) e'uorxa~ IS!.JM pue iappoqs aq ppom qms Su!uu$?aq aq jo wuauodmm r~nzmudom~ qbql ap8m sem uopdum~sea~ snma *~o)sn.usy all) Lq dn ias =am ieq saqsmus ual pauuopd wdqns aq 'uo!ssas isal q3ea UI 'iyn pog~nqsu! all) (9 ?I=& lal@ Pue (0 W& aojaq qsmus alll uo Wm seM 1Hqns 43- 'qsmUS PUe PmqmAO 'aruas/mal3 puevapun jo slpp snaroS!~ all) paz!sqdma pue qaam x!s pa~sq ssrr(3 aq jo i!un isnj aq~, 'ssels uoau!urpeq Supurgaq 8 u! %uyed!s@ q loud uo~yurpeq q!m n?g!urejun aram Lau .wmCqns SB pams (1pqLano~ 'l@qianbw'qma 'Symm!ms "$a) sUods iaqo pue Su!manl, pa3uapdxa aram oqm appu SunoL mod .uo!xaU 1sp~ ayssaaxa pus 'uo!suawa moqla apnl 'uo!xa~ iap~noqs iua.red& q!m iaqnlsems ~u!uu@aq e ijgap (0661) slatpea pue umeq@!aq 'ISMU~ UI .urn aq jo uopmx qm-Suo~ may lip la^ awnqs jo 9609 1noqeaArtaP mllmsPall?P '(6L.61) aW!Mof) 01 8~1~1033~ 'MOI 4 W3sPueUJaP there was slight shoulder extension rather than flexion during propulsion. Because thi wrist velocity increased, then decreased, then increased again before contact, there was the appearance of "jerky movement". Subject 2 demonstrated profound changes with practice: Instead of "omitting" the shoulder, there was vigorous transverse adduction. Changes at the wrist included. initiation of rotation as the shoulder reached peak angular velocity, attainment of much higher angular velocity, and elimination of the appearance of jerkiness. Prior to practice Subject 3 employed a striking technique that emphasized shoulder flexion but also included some long-axis rotation in the arm segments. The shoulder and wrist contributed to propulsion with optimal sequencing and timing. However, RPtr Wpist velocity stayed near maximum for a sustained period, and the trunk was translattng throughout the swing. These wrist and trunk actions served to flatten the arc of the swing and appeared to be associated with interception. In Week 6 there was little modification of shoulder technique or timing. After practice, a preliminary back scratch motion was added, the wrist velocity was higher and more coincident with contact, the shoulder velocity was lower. and the trunk was stabilized during the arm movements. Subject 4 in Week 0 exhibited similarities to the actions of Subject 3 in Week 6. For example, a back scratch movement proceeded the propulsive phase of shoulder flexion, and there was some long-axis rotation in the arm segments. Distinctive characteristics of Subject 4 included a gap of 0.07 sbetween peak angular velocity of the shoulder and minimum angular velocity of the wrist. and no "contact". That is. prior to practice. Subject 4 was unable to successfully intercept the shuttle. With six weeks of practice, Subject 4 made subtle changes in timing by reducing the gap between shoulder and Wpist propulsion to 0.03 s. The only significant change with practice was that interception was consistently successful. In conclusion, almost all the hypothesized characteristics of beginners were observed in Week 0: Subject 1 used a simultaneous pattern of coordination in the elbow and wrist (Kreighbaum & Barthels, 1990); Subject 4 used a "late" sequential panern of coordination in the shoulder and wrist (Morehouse & Cooper, 1950); Subjects 1 and 2 virtually omitted the shoulder joint (Morehouse & Cooper); and Subject 2 used a "jerky movement" in the wrist (Bunn, 1972). After six weeks of practice all subjects had optimal or near-optimal sequential patterns of coordination in the shoulder and wrist. Subjects 1,2. and 3 appeared to adopt conservative pattems of striking in Week 0. That is, although they were successful in intercepting the shuale, they reverted to sagittal plane movement. propelled segments simultaneously. reduced range of motion. omitted segments,and/or flattened thearc of segments. Subject4 neither exhibited these conservative characteristics nor contacted the shuttle. Perhaps interception adds a level of complexity to ballistic tasks such that initial success in making contact comes at the expense of more mamre or coordinated movement. REFERENCES Bunn, J .  W .  (1972). Scientjficprinciples of coaching (2nd ed.). Bnglswood CUPfs, NJ: hentice-Hall. Gowitzke, B. (1979). Biomechanical principles applied to badminton stroke produc- tion. In J.  Terauds (ed.), Science in racquet sports @p. 7-15). Del Mar, CA: Academic Publishers. Kreighbaum, E. & Barthels, K. M. (1990). Biomechanics: A quulitative approach for studying human movement (3rd ed.). New Yo& Macmillan. Morehouse. L. E. & Cooper, J. M. (1950). Kinesiology. St. Louis: Mosby. 

INTERCEPTION AND INTERSEGMENTAL COORDINATION: EFFECTS OF PRACTICE

https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/download/2650/2488

INTERCEPTION AND INTERSEGMENTAL COORDINATION: EFFECTS OF PRACTICE

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive