The effects of model upper limb position on observer P300 event-related potential

• Autorzy: Yukiko Nagai , Haruo Sakuma
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Study aim: This study reports on the characteristics of learners’ information-gathering processes when receiving visual motor information by examining the influence of differences in model upper limb placement on observer attention. Materials and Methods: The experiment, which was conducted with seven subjects, consisted of a visual oddball task in which subjects were instructed to push a button corresponding to the target image when it was presented on a screen. Two images were used in the task: a “front” image in which the upper limbs were placed in front of the trunk, and an “outside” image in which the upper limbs were placed outside the trunk. The variables measured were brainwaves during task performance, button push reaction time, and questionnaire responses. Brainwaves were recorded at the Fz, Cz, and Pz electrode sites and event-related potentials at the time of target image presentation were calculated. Grand mean waveforms and mean potentials were also compared for the P300. Results: Comparisons of P300 amplification grand mean waveforms and mean potentials revealed that amplification was greater in the front condition than in the outside condition. Conclusion: This finding indicates that differences in model upper limb placement greatly affect observer attention.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

P300 event-related potential; Upper limb placement; Motor learning

• Czasopismo: Biomedical Human Kinetics
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 5
• Numer: 1
• Strony: 72-76

Daty

online

2013-11-23

Twórcy

autor

Yukiko Nagai

• Department of Childhood Education and Childcare, Mintogawa College, 1430 Yotsutsuji, Sandashi, Hyougo 669-1342, Japan,

autor

Haruo Sakuma

• Department of Sport and Health Science, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Norohigashi, Kusatsushi, Siga 525-8577, Japan

Bibliografia

• 1. American Electroencephalographic Society (1994) Guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J. Clin. Neurophysiol, 11: 111-113. 1.
• 2. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Pearson: London.
• 3. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev., 84: 191-215.
• 4. Donchin, E., L. Cohen (1967) Averaged evoked potentials and intramodality selective attention. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 22: 537-546.
• 5. Dubal, S., A. Pierson, R. Jouvent (2000) Focused attention in anhedonia: a P3 study. Psychophysiol., 37: 711-714.
• 6. Gooey, K., O. Bradfield, O.J. Talbot, J.D.L. Morgan, D.L.U. Proske (2000) Effects of body orientation, load and vibration on sensing position and movement at the human elbow joint. Exp. Brain. Res., 133: 340--348.
• 7. Kogoj, A., Z. Pirtosek, M. Tomori, D.B. Vodusek (2005) Event-related potentials elicited by distractors in an auditory oddball paradigm in schizophrenia. Psychiatry. Res., 137: 49-59.
• 8. Kok, A. (2001) On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiol., 38: 557-577.
• 9. Kramer, A.F., E.J. Sirevaag, P.R. Hughes (1988) Effects of foveal task load on visual-spatial attention: eventrelated brain potentials and performance. Psychophysiol., 25: 512-531.
• 10. Nara, M., A. Saito, T. Kumagai, A. Sumi, (2007) The effects of subjective discriminability on P300 of event -related potentials. Mejiro. J. Psychol., 3: 41-49.
• 11. Picton, T.W., S. Bentin, P. Berg, E. Donchin, S.A. Hillyard, R. Johnson Jr, G.A. Miller, W. Ritter, D.S. Ruchkin, M.D. Rugg, M.J. Taylor (2000). Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiol., 37: 127-152.
• 12. Sakairi, Y., H. Tokuda, M. Kawahara, T. Tanigi, H. Soya (2003) Development of the two dimension mood scale for measuring psychological arousal level and hedonic tone. Bull. Inst. Health. Sport. Sci., Univers Tsukuba, 26: 27-36.
• 13. Sakata M, M. Shiba, M. Tadenuma (2002) Recognition of KANSEI information on body expression. Analysis of estimation of impression and eye movement. Eizo. Joho. Media. Gakkai. Gijutsu. Hokoku, 26: 9-12.
• 14. Shibayama, K., G. Naruse (1980) An analysis of motor action space in motor memory. Res. Bull. Educ. Psychol., Fac. Educ., Kyushu University, 25: 61-67.
• 15. Shibayama, K., G. Naruse (1982) An examination of motor action space in location reproduction: on the influence of movement distance. Res. Bull. Of. Educ. Psychol., Fac. Educ., Kyushu University, 26: 67-74.
• 16. Shibayama, K. (1983) Location and distance cues of motor space in movement reproduction. Shinrigaku. Kenkyu. 54: 321-324. DOI: 10.4992/jjpsy.54.321.[Crossref]
• 17. Vinter. A., E. Chartrel (2010) Effects of different types of learning on handwriting movements in young children. Learn. Instr., 20: 476-486.
• 18. Wakisaka K., S. Hashimoto (2012) Effect of difficulty of stroop tasks on P300 amplitude and latency: one word task on five colors and five words task on five colors. Jpn. J. Phys. Anthr., 17: 23-30.
• 19. Wickens, C., A. Kramer, L. Vanasse, E. Donchin (1983) Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. Science, 221: 1080-1082.
• 20. Williams, J.G., N. Roku (1995) The present condition of motor learning research based on modeling theory. J. Health. Phys. Educ. Recreat., 45: 477-480.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/bhk-2013-0011