Research focused on human motor development, learning, and control has been a prominent feature in the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (RQES) since it was first published in 1930. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the papers in the RQES that demonstrate the journal's contributions to the study of motor development, learning, and control. The landmark study by Henry and Rogers (1960), the C. H. McCloy lectures, and theoretical and review papers in motor behavior are highlighted. The RQES has served as a significant outlet for research in development, learning, and control throughout its 75-year history. The convergence of the theories, research methods and analytical tools lead to the proposition that these three areas have evolved into a field best described as motor behavior.
Key words: cognition and performance, dynamic systems, skills
**********
The first issue of the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (1) (RQES) included studies on human development and motor performance (Cozens, 1930; Herriott, 1930). This article examines the trends in motor development, learning, and control as reflected in the 75 years of research published in the RQES. Theoretical and review papers in the areas of growth and motor development and motor learning and control, two of the current subsections of RQES, are highlighted. (2) A trend now evident is the convergence of these fields through similar theories and methodological and analytical techniques. That is, current motor behavior research transcends the boundaries of the labels used for our specialties, such as development, learning, and control, as evidenced by researchers collaborating with scholars in other areas and publishing across the different research sections of the RQES (e.g., Benguigui & Ripoll, 1998; Christensen et al., 2003; Getchell, Forrester, & Whitall, 2001; Jensen, Phillips, & Clark, 1994; Williams, Katene, & Fleming, 2002; Williams, Weigelt, Harris, & Scott, 2002).
The opportunities for cross-talk among the specialties are exciting and have the potential to facilitate a more complete understanding of human movement. Certainly, the complexity of human movement challenges us to address the interactions among subsystems, from neural mechanisms to practice and experience to changes in biomechanical properties, over time. Cognizance of the particularly exciting convergence of issues today in the motor control and learning and growth and motor development sections encouraged the editor to request the joint review of the research from these sections of the RQES in this article.
Our goal for this paper is not to provide an in-depth history of our subdisciplines (see Clark & Whitall, 1989; Thelen 2000; Thomas, 1997; Whitall, 1995 for reviews). Nor is it our purpose to provide a distilled review of research in the most significant topics in our areas, although we will, of course, address them. Rather, in keeping with the theme of celebrating 75 years of excellence in the RQES we will weave the early threads of our histories into a fabric that reflects more prominently the work that has emerged in the years since the golden anniversary of the RQES in 1980 (see Vol. 51, No. 1, March, 1980).
This paper has two major organizational sections. First, an historical commentary on the research in the RQES will be presented with a focus on themed papers focused on pre-eminent topics, a landmark study, and several theoretical review papers. Obviously, it is not possible to include every article from the RQES; however, we've attempted to identify significant examples of motor behavior research published in the RQES. Second, the article includes a commentary on the convergence of the snbdisciplines of motor development, learning, and control as reflected in recent articles published in the RQES. This convergence is evident in the new methodological and analytical tools used by researchers in our fields and the overlapping of theoretical and conceptual models that drive much of the research. Through this second section, we hope to provoke some discussion by raising the issue of our subdiscipline names; what distinguishes the research in development, learning, and control. Finally, how do we distinguish between motor behavior and pedagogical research if we ask our questions in applied settings, such as the schools?
Motor Development, Learning, and Control: A Historical Perspective
As noted previously, the first issue of the RQES included articles on the physical development of college women (Herriott, 1930) and the relationships of height and weight to physical performance (Cozens, 1930). Every volume of the RQES includes empirical studies on the development, acquisition, and performance of skillful human movement.
Themed Papers on Preeminent Topics
The RQES has published collections of papers focusing on research in physical education and health, with many of these papers related to motor development, learning, and control. One collection published in the RQES was the proceedings of the 34th meeting of Society of Directors of Physical Education in Colleges, which included a review by Affleck (1931) on recent advances in the neuromuscular control of movements. In 1934, the RQES published the University of Iowa Studies in Physical Education. In that volume, Nakamura (1934) examined reaction time in the track start, McCloy (1934) evaluated the correlations among tests of general motor capacity and motor ability, and Lemon and Sherbon (1934) studied the relationships among measures of rhythmic ability and motor ability in women. In 1938, the Wellesley College Studies in Hygiene and Physical Education were published as a supplement in the RQES (see Vol. IX, No. 1). The research summarized in that supplement represented studies conducted at Wellesley College from 1923 through 1937 and included summaries of individual studies on neuromuscular function and development that examined factors related to motor ability.
The RQES has published other collections of research that included studies specifically in motor development, learning, and control. For example, Brace (1946) summarized studies intended to identify traits related to individual differences in the ability to learn gross motor skills. In 1960, the RQES published a supplement on the contributions of physical activity to human well being. This supplement included review articles by Mohr (1960) on physical activity and skill learning and Espenschade (1960) on physical activity and development. Then, in 1972, the RQES dedicated an entire issue to skill learning and performance (see RQES, Vol. 43, No. 3). The established knowledge base from research in motor skill acquisition and performance was represented in seven articles and included a foreword by Berlin and Gentile (1972) and a postscript by Lersten, Martens, and Smith (1972). The articles captured the then current focus of research in motor skill acquisition and foreshadowed issues to develop over the next decades. Whiting (1972) and Welford (1972) described skill learning from an information processing perspective. Higgins (1972) emphasized the importance of environmental demands in skill acquisition. Robb (1972), Locke (1972), and Wilberg (1972) addressed the issues of application of motor learning research to teaching in physical education. Of course, these theoretical and research issues remain today. It is interesting to note that, with the exception of supplements, similar special issues for the other subdisciplines have not been published in the RQES.
In addition to the above studies, several categories of research featuring motor development, learning, and control have been published in the RQES. Although we focus on these studies, an overview of the articles published in the RQES clearly indicates that the journal has been and continues to be a rich source of research in motor development, learning, and control.
A Landmark Study
The RQES has published significant research in a variety of disciplines related to the art and science of human movement. These studies have advanced our understanding of human movement from the different perspectives represented in the RQES. Of all the research published, however, the study by Franklin Henry (Henry & Rogers, 1960) has been most frequently cited (see Thomas & Cardinal, 2005) and arguably has had the greatest impact on subsequent research within its discipline. In the Henry and Rogers (1960) study, participants completed a series of tasks that varied in movement complexity. One was a simple reaction time task; another was a one-component movement task (i.e., reach and grasp); and the third was a three-component task with movement reversals. The result most often cited from this study is that reaction times increased as the number of movement parts increased. That is, with an increase in the complexity of the movement, there was a corresponding increase in the reaction time preceding movement initiation. Henry and Rogers proposed a 'memory drum' theory of reaction time. The significance of this study and a summary of much of the subsequent research on movement complexity are captured in the RQES article by Robert Christina (1992).
Interestingly, Henry and Rogers (1960) compared performances between men and women, and also used 8- and 12-year-old children and young adults. Overall, the increased reaction times occurred for all groups tested. Additionally, Henry and Rogers calculated the relationships among the various measures of reaction time and movement time. Their results indicated a low correlation between these measures, leading the authors to conclude that 'there is only a relatively small amount of general ability to move the arm rapidly' (p. 457). So, in a real sense, the most cited study from the RQES combined motor control and motor development concepts and challenged previous notions of general motor ability.
Franklin Henry published two other studies in the same issue of the RQES. One examined relationships between arm strength and arm speed (Henry, 1960a); the other examined sensory and motor sets on reaction time and movement time (Henry, 1960b). Also, Henry (1961) continued to publish investigations in the RQES related to his 'memory drum' theory of reaction time. Although these studies have not been cited as often as the Henry and Rogers (1960) article, they clearly demonstrate the significant contributions of Franklin Henry's research as reflected in the RQES. Roberta Park (1994) published in the RQES a detailed history of Franklin Henry's contributions to physical education and research in motor behavior.
Theoretical and Review Papers
In addition to early thematically oriented reviews previously cited, the RQES has continued to publish theoretical and review papers related to motor development, learning, and control. Lee and Genovese (1988) examined the issue of the distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition. Commentary papers (Ammons, 1988; Christina & Shea, 1988; Lintern, 1988; Magill, 1988; Newell, Antoniou, & Carlton, 1988) followed their review. In 1998 Walter, Lee, and Sternad collaborated on a series of papers examining the dynamic systems approach to motor control and coordination. Buchanan and Ulrich (2001) introduced The Feldenkrais Method as a dynamic systems-like approach to changing motor behavior. Their paper was followed by a commentary by Ives (2003) and their response (Buchanan & Ulrich, 2003) to his commentary. Most recently, Schmidt (2003) reviewed his Schema Theory 27 years after its initial publication. Sherwood and Lee (2003) and Newell (2003) provided commentaries on Schema Theory. Other review articles have been published as part of the 50th anniversary issue and also from the C. H. McCloy Lectures
The 50th Anniversary Issue. In 1980, the RQES celebrated its 50th anniversary with a special issue, in which scholars from the research areas represented in the RQES were asked to prepare review papers on specific topics. Rarick (1980) and Thomas (1980) wrote the motor development review articles that addressed cognitive aspects of motor development. Rarick examined the relationship between cognition and motor performance during the developing years. Thomas discussed the acquisition of motor skills in children using an information-processing model.
Schmidt (1980) and Stelmach and Larish (1980) wrote the articles that focused on motor learning and control. Schmidt discussed theoretical issues related to motor programming. Stelmach and Larish presented an overview of issues related to attention demands and motor learning. An interesting observation regarding this section is that the term motor behavior was used as the label for the research reviewed in this pair of articles.
The C. H. McCloy Lectures. The Research Consortium of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) began a series of invited lectures at the annual AAHPERD convention in 1980. These lectures were to commemorate the contributions of C. H. McCloy and reflected the variety of research represented in the Research Consortium. C. H. McCloy made significant contributions in the study of children's motor abilities and performance (see Malina, 1989). The invited McCloy scholars are encouraged to publish their lectures in the RQES. A number of the McCloy scholars have been leading researchers in motor development, learning, and control. Spirduso (1983), Malina (1989), Clark (1995), and Thomas (2000) have presented McCloy lectures that focused on motor development. Magill (1998) discussed implicit learning that occurs during the acquisition of motor skills. The articles by Schmidt (1985), Christina (1992), and Reeve (2004) focused on cognitive perspectives of motor control. Christina's article revisited the work of Franklin Henry (Henry & Rogers, 1960) and summarized advances in the movement complexity effect. These published McCloy lectures provide significant in-depth reviews of research on specific issues in motor development, learning, and control.
Convergence of Motor Development, Learning, and Control
In 1998 Dick Magill, then editor-in-chief of RQES, introduced a new feature, focused on special topics. The inaugural set of papers (Walter, Lee, & Sternad, 1998) and another set published in 2004 (Kamen, 2004b) were written by motor behavior scientists. They illustrate ways in which the theories, fundamental concepts, and analytical tools that now drive much of our research apply across the subdisciplines of development, learning, and control. In both sets of papers emerging theories and classic approaches to studying motor performance were illustrated with experimental data that transcended our traditional sub-disciplinary boundaries.
Walter and colleagues (1998) recognized that the time had come to reflect on the past 20 years of dynamic systems research in motor behavior. The growing body of data-based and theoretical work focused on this approach had reached critical mass, making it a timely enterprise to look backward as well as forward to explore the evidence for and potential limitations of this approach. Just 25 years ago, the review papers written for the motor control, learning, and development areas for the 50th anniversary edition of RQES did not mention dynamic systems, illustrating the rapid and recent rise in interest in this approach. One reason dynamic systems has aroused the attention (pro and con) of motor behaviorists across our three subdisciplines is that it presents arguments counter to traditional constructs outlined within other popular theories in each area. While the specific examples of dynamic systems research presented by Walter and his collaborators (Lee, 1998; Sternad, 1998; Walter, 1998) were taken from motor learning and control research, we believe it is fair to say that in the motor development realm as well, dynamic systems has emerged as a prominent theoretical approach. From 1980-89 none of the papers published in RQES that focused on motor development questions were based on this approach; by 1999 a little over a quarter (26%) of the articles included this approach, and between 2000 and 2004 nearly half of the authors used constructs associated with the dynamic systems perspective as the basis for the design and, or, interpretation of their results.
Walter (1998) and Lee (1998) presented thoughtful, provocative, and balanced overviews of their understanding of several dynamic systems constructs and raised issues that will continue to be the focal point of theoretical arguments for some time. They posited, for example, that dynamic systems do not account for the role of cognition in behaviors and provide more description than explanation. Sternad (1998) outlined the scientific lineage of the contemporary dynamic systems approach and presented arguments supporting the explanatory power of dynamic systems concepts. Using data from her own laboratory she illustrated how dynamic systems can explain two traditional motor behavior quandaries: (a) motor equivalence and (b) individual differences. Ongoing challenges notwithstanding, the breadth of disciplines beyond motor behavior in which this approach has taken hold virtually assures it will impact our thinking for many years to come. Much more work needs to be done to address the challenges raised and thoroughly investigate the constructs proposed by this approach, as is the normal course of science.
In his introduction to another set of special topics papers, Kamen (2004b) identified the goal as to discuss the value of two approaches to understanding motor control. He specified these two approaches as: (a) the study of specific neural mechanisms and (b) dynamic systems theory. Although Kamen specified only motor control (not learning or development) in his opening statement, the other authors took a broader approach, addressing the effects of practice on performance, or learning effects, as well. Knight (2004) illustrated his arguments, for example, by describing learning and control of a golf swing; Li (2004) addressed practice and context effects on the control and coordination of cycling. Kamen (2004a) and Koceja (Koceja, Davison, & Robertson, 2004) each described significant plasticity in neural mechanisms, including monosynaptic reflexes, that arises from training or practice.
Shared theoretical interests among the subdisciplines, as illustrated in the sets of RQES papers published in 1998 and 2004, were, in fact, evident at least 25 years ago. In the 50th anniversary issue of the RQES, all four papers written for the motor control and learning and the growth and motor development areas had a common theme: issues of information processing, or cognitive aspects of motor performance. Schmidt (1980) and Stelmach and Larish (1980), writing for the motor control and learning areas, focused on information processing factors, motor programming, and attention/skill automation, respectively. On the developmental side, Thomas (1980) addressed the differences between children and adults in their speed of processing information, access to short and long-term memory, and ability to devise and use rehearsal strategies. Rarick (1980) reviewed the data on cognitive intelligence and motor performance in children, particularly those with cognitive limitations. Interest remains high across these specialty areas in the cognitive component of motor performance. A review of papers in the RQES over the past decade reveals an array of developmental papers that, for example, explored reaction time/movement time in a pointing task (Yan & Thomas, 2002) and memory strategies used by experts and novice youth baseball players (French et al., 1996; Nevett & French, 1997) and tennis players (McPherson, 1999). Studies of skill acquisition and control have examined the role of attentional focus (Sherwood & Rios, 2001; Wulf, McNevin, Fuchs, Ritter, & Toole, 2000), mental representation for movement (Fourkas, Martenuik, & Khan, 2003), and motor programming of skillful movements (Lai, Shea, Wulf, & Wright, 2000; Whitacre & Shea, 2002).
The preceding examples are not meant to reflect a comprehensive list of the theoretical approaches or issues important to scientists in our areas today. However, we would argue they are among the dominant topics and illustrate the mutual gain inherent in convergence. We define convergence in this setting as overlap in theories, constructs, and goals. As the first two sets of papers suggest, we advance our goals by respectful debate and challenge, by seriously considering the impact of each other's data on our own understanding of 'reality' and interpretation of our empirical results.
Beyond the theoretical and applied issues we share, our areas have expanded and increasingly overlap in the tools we use to monitor and analyze human behavior and its subsystems. Years ago, using electromyography and force plates to collect data was limited to biomechanics laboratories, but it has become common to see these tools used in contemporary motor behavior labs as well. High-speed film has given way to a variety of active and passive techniques to monitor body segment locations in space. This new equipment enables significant advances in the precision and rate of motion capture, leading to increased data reduction and analysis options, whether the task is learning to extend the elbow to a predetermined angle at a specific velocity or demonstrating control and coordination during an overarm throw. Computerized systems allow scientists to create virtual realities that facilitate the study of how sensory information integrates with other systems to affect motor performance and stability. Existing and new, noninvasive techniques, such as electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), provide a window on the electric signals produced in the brain by the network of trillions of neurons--the carriers of information processing in the central nervous system. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides a secondary measure of brain activation, which monitors the blood oxygenation levels that result from activity, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) allows stimulation of specific areas of the brain to observe the neuronal reactivity and connectivity.
The types of data produced by these monitoring tools and our corresponding questions have led to the need for expanding our set of analytical tools. Many of the statistical analyses that have served us well for more than 75 years remain staples in our work chest (e.g., analyses of variance, multivariate analyses of variance, and correlations). And calculating parameters, such as constant, absolute, and variable error, traditionally associated with motor learning accuracy tasks, remain valuable and frequently used. Nevertheless, researchers in motor behavior have, in growing rates in the past decade or two, discovered nonlinear dynamics tools to be helpful. As Walter, Lee, and Sternad (1998) noted, 'the tools of dynamical description may be useful for investigators adopting any number of theoretical perspectives' (p. 317). For example, an interest in viewing the point-by-point relation between one variable and another, or multiple others, pushes one to plot behavioral trajectories in 'phase space,' or phase portraits. To analyze the coupling between two trajectories (e.g., the right and left leg during gait) researchers may use point or continuous relative phase calculations. Mathematical models are used, for example, to determine the fit between predicting the parameters critical to forming a trajectory of change in behavior or the coupling of behaviors. Efforts to understand dynamic stability and local fluctuations in performance that differ from discrete-point variability have compelled motor behavior scientists to use analyses that include maximum Lyapunov exponent and approximate entropy. These represent just a few examples of the many dynamic tools being scientists use to analyze the behavior of the system and/or its subsystems.
An important thread tying together the information presented in the preceding paragraphs is that contemporary research in motor control, learning, and development has significant overlap in scientific concerns and methods. It has become increasingly difficult to categorize motor behavior scientists, their work, or their lines of inquiry simply, or separately, as motor control, motor learning, or motor development. The issues addressed are shared issues, as are our theories and methods. We propose that the real interweaving of effort and ideas is not a troubling or blurring of boundaries state of affairs. In fact, we argue just the opposite. In practice, this phenomenon is breaking down the traditional walls that separate us and limit our appreciation of closely aligned studies. In theory, it means we must approach our work with a more complex and integrated effort. Human movement is, of course, multilayered and complex. Further, we have the responsibility, across specializations, to attempt to interpret our data for others within this broader context. Our differences may be in the details of the specifics we test; our similarities are in the overarching principles that explain the origin and stability of behavior patterns and the processes impacting change in these patterns.
We believe the time has come, once again, to consider a unifying name, such as motor behavior, that reflects our overarching goals of understanding the emergence and change in controlling and coordinating motor performance. We argue that such a 'movement' would unify and strengthen our efforts. It would also address the reality that many scientists currently believe their work does not fit nearly into just one area defined as motor control, learning, or development. The unifying effect would be to push scientists as well as their audiences to think contextually and comprehensively. When authors are aware that reviewers expect them to demonstrate an understanding of relevant issues from control, learning, and development, the result will be more complex and stronger research designs and interpretation of results. We believe this would lead to greater impact of our work, overall, within and outside of the discipline of kinesiology. The reality is that many scientists have begun to follow this approach in their work, as the evolution of their line of questioning has taken them beyond the more narrow confines of their early training. We believe that by embracing our unique contributions and building on them we can have a greater impact beyond kinesiology, including areas of neuroscience, biomedical science, and human development, to name but a few relevant areas.
The issue of what we call ourselves and how to define us is not new (e.g., Clark & Whitall, 1989; Schmidt, 1988; Roberton, 1989; Thomas, 1989). There are valid arguments for both retaining current rifles and merging into a new one. We hope, here, to provoke renewed discussion that leads to action. A guiding principle we offer for any name change is to consider the impact 20 years from now on our understanding of the processes underlying motor performance across the lifespan. That is, how would this affect the questions we believe are important to study, the content we share with students in university classes, the breadth and depth with which we train graduate students, the design and interpretation of our results, and the avenues we choose for sharing and applying the information we derive. This is to suggest that we limit, but not ignore, the political debates concerning assigned 'lines' within a department or slots on convention programs. The focus is on embracing, learning about, and integrating the diversity in what we do.
Motor Behavior Research and Pedagogical Research
We have argued in this paper that the research in motor development, learning, and control have converged into a field best described as motor behavior. This argument is based on the fact that theories, fundamental issues, methods and analytical tools are common to all three areas. Motor behavior research encompasses basic and applied studies (e.g., Halverson, Roberton, Safrit, & Roberts, 1977; Nevett & French, 1997; Sherwood & Rois, 2001; Slater-Hammel, 1958). Because of the range of issues addressed, the overlap between motor behavior and other areas, such as pedagogy, has blurred the distinction between these areas.
Pedagogy is an important research area that for some people also suggests convergence with the more applied studies in motor behavior. This becomes evident when authors, editors, and section editors, for example, may have difficulty determining which area is the best fit for a particular paper submitted to the RQES. The confusion, in some cases, may emerge because the task used by the researcher is one commonly taught in a physical education or coaching setting, like throwing, catching, or striking a ball. The setting itself, a school, for example, may also suggest a pedagogy study. While we strongly believe both areas of science (motor behavior and pedagogy) provide a knowledge base that can inform and assist the other, we would also propose clear distinctions between them.
Neither the task nor the setting defines the area within which one's work fits best. The fundamental distinctions are the issues or questions being posed. In motor behavior, the focus is on understanding the processes and mechanisms that drive the emergence of and changes in behavior patterns. With deference to our pedagogy experts, we humbly suggest that the focus on instruction in activity and sport programs is not a motor behavior issue. One could, therefore, use catching as the task to study issues related to the role of vision and proprioception in grip configuration (a motor behavior issue; e.g., Fischman & Mucci, 1989) or the impact of teaching strategies on improvement in catching performance (a pedagogy issue; e.g., Goodway & Branta, 2003). In each case, the issues are broader and more generalizable than the unique task. That is, the theoretical issues, not the tasks or contexts, define the scientific discipline.
Concluding Comment
As demonstrated in this article, the research published in the RQES has contributed significantly to our understanding of motor development, learning, and control. The RQES articles suggest converging work in these specializations into an area described, perhaps, as motor behavior. Moreover, motor behavior researchers increasingly collaborate with others scholars in other specialties, including exercise physiology, biomechanics, sport psychology, and pedagogy. These collaborations add to our understanding of the complexity of human behavior. Additionally, as the benefits of exercise and physical activity have become more appreciated and the importance of motor behavior research to therapeutic interventions grows, the opportunities for research funding in motor behavior have expanded. The theoretical knowledge created through motor behavior research provides meaningful information that contributes to our fundamental understanding of human movement and influences practice in medical and public health professions, physical education and coaching, and other applied fields. Our review of the articles published in RQES over the past 75 years reveals not only a rich history but also suggests a bright and expansive future for motor behavior science.
Notes
(1.) The original title for the journal was The Research Quarterly of the American Physical Education Association, or more commonly referred to as The Research Quarterly. For the purposes of this article, reference to the journal will be to its current name and abbreviated as RQES.
(2.) The first official listing of section editors in the RQES was in the December issue (Vol. 49, No. 4, 1979). The motor behavior sections represented were growth and development and motor learning, with G. Lawrence Rarick and Robert W. Christina as the first section editors, respectively. Another of the first sections in the RQES was neurophysiology, with Waneen W. Spirduso serving as the section editor.
References
Affleck, G. B. (1931). Some physical aspects of neuromuscular control. The Research Quarterly, II, 60-75.
Ammons, R. B. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: A few questions and comments. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 288-290.
Benguigui, N., & Ripoll, H. (1998). Effects of tennis practice on coincidence timing accuracy of adults and children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 217-223.
Berlin, P., & Gentile, A. M. (1972). Foreword. Research Quarterly, 43, 263-265.
Brace, D. K. (1946). Studies in motor learning of gross bodily motor skills. The Research Quarterly, 17, 242-253.
Buchanan, P. A., & Ulrich, B. D. (2001). The Feldenkrais Method[R]: A dynamic approach to changing motor behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 315-323.
Buchanan, P. A., & Ulrich, B. D. (2003). Attending to the process of changing behavior: A reply to Ives' commentary. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 124-126.
Christensen, C. L., Payne, V. G., Wughalter, E. H., Yan, J. H., Hanehan, M., & Jones, R. (2003). Physical activity, physiological, and psychomotor performance: A study of variously active older adult men. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 136-142.
Christina, R. W. (1992) Unraveling the mystery of the response complexity effect in skilled movements. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 218-230.
Christina, R. W., & Shea, J. B. (1988). The limitations of generalization based on restricted information. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Science, 59, 291-297.
Clark, J. E. (1995). On becoming skillful: Patterns and constraints. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 173-183
Clark, J. E., & Whitall, J. (1989). What is motor development? The lessons of history. Quest, 41, 183-202.
Cozens, F. W. (1930). A study of stature in relation to physical performance. The Research Quarterly, I, 38-45.
Espenschade, A. S. (1960). The contributions of physical activity to growth. The Research Quarterly, 31, 351-364.
Fischman, M. G., & Mucci, W. G. (1989). Influence of a baseball glove on the nature of errors produced in simple one-hand catching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 251-255.
French, K. E., Nevett, M. E., Spurgeon, J. H., Graham, K. G., Rink, J. E., & McPherson, S. L. (1996). Knowledge representation and problem solution in expert and novice youth baseball players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 386-395.
Fourkas, A. D., Martenuik, R. G., & Khan, M. A. (2003). Guiding movements with internal representations: A reach-and-grasp task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 165-172.
Getchell, N., Forrester, L., & Whitall, J. (2001). Individual differences and similarities in the stability, timing, consistency, and natural frequency of rhythmic coordinated actions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 13-21.
Goodway, J. D., & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 36-46.
Halverson, L. E., Roberton, M. A., Safrit, J., & Roberts, T. W. (1977). Effect of guided practice on overhand-throw ball velocities of kindergarten children. Research Quarterly, 48, 311-318.
Higgins, J. R. (1972). Movements to match environmental demands. Research Quarterly, 43, 312-336.
Henry, F. M. (1960a). Factorial structure of speed and static strength in a lateral arm movement. The Research Quarterly, 31, 440-447.
Henry, F. M. (1960b). Influence of motor and sensory sets on reaction latency and speed of discrete movements. The Research Quarterly, 31, 459-468.
Henry, F. M. (1961). Stimulus complexity, movement complexity and speed in limb movement. The Research Quarterly, 32, 353-366.
Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and the 'memory drum' theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 31, 448-458.
Herriott, J. S. (1930). Physical development of college women. The Research Quarterly, I, 46-53.
Ives, J. C. (2003). Comments on 'The Feldenkrais Method[R]: A dynamic approach to changing motor behavior.' Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 116-123.
Jensen, J. L., Phillips, S.J., & Clark, J. E. (1994). For young jumpers, differences are in the movement's control, not its coordination. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 258-268.
Kamen, G. (2004a). Neural issues in the control of muscular strength. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 3-8.
Kamen, G. (2004b). Neuromotor issues in human performance: Introduction. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 1-2.
Koceja, D. M., Davison, E., & Robertson, C. T. (2004). Neuromuscular characteristics of endurance- and peertrained athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 23-30.
Knight, C. A. (2004). Neuromotor issues in the learning and control of golf skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 8-15.
Lai, Q., Shea, S. H., Wulf, G., & Wright, D. L. (2000) Optimizing generalized motor program and parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 10-24.
Lee, T. D. (1998). On the dynamics of motor learning research. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 334-337.
Lee, T. D., & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly for exercise and Sport, 59, 277-287.
Lemon, E., & Sherbon, E. (1934). A study of the relationship of certain measures of rhythmic ability and motor ability in girls and women. The Research Quarterly, V, 82-85.
Lersten, K. C., Martens, R., & Smith, H. M. (1972). Postscript. Research Quarterly, 43, 394-397.
Li, L. (2004). Neuromuscular control and coordination during cycling. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 16-22.
Lintern, G. (1988). Distributed practice: Are there useful insights for application or theory? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Science, 59, 298-302.
Locke, L. F. (1972). Implications for physical education. Research Quarterly, 43, 374-386.
Magill, R. A. (1988). The many faces of practice distribution in motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Science, 59, 303-307.
Magill, R. A. (1998). Knowledge if more than we can talk about: Implicit learning in motor skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 104-110,
Malina, R. M. (1989) Children in the exercise sciences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 60, 305-317.
McCloy, C. H. (1934). The measurement of general motor capacity and general motor ability. The Research Quarterly, V, 46-61.
Mohr, D. R. (1960). The contributions of physical activity to skill learning. The Research Quarterly, 31, 321-349.
Nakamura, H. (1934). An experimental study of reaction time of the start in running a race. The Research Quarterly, V, 33-45.
Nevett, M. E., & French, K. E. (1997). The development of sport-specific planning, rehearsal, and updating of plans during defensive youth baseball game performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 203-214.
Newell, K. M. (2003). Schema theory (1975): Retrospectives and prospectives. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 383-388.
Newell, K. M., Antoniou, A., & Carlton, L. G. (1988). Massed and distributed practice effects: Phenomena in search of a theory? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 308-313.
Park, R.J. (1994). A long and productive career: Franklin M. Henry--Scientist, Mentor, Pioneer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 295-307.
Rarick, G. L. (1980). Cognitive-motor relationships in the growing years. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 174-192.
Reeve, T. G. (2004). At the Crossroads: The contributions of response selection processes to human performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 343-351.
Robb, M. D. (1972). Task analysis: A consideration for teachers of skills. Research Quarterly, 43, 362-373.
Roberton, M. A. (1989). Motor development: Recognizing our roots, charting our future. Quest, 41, 213-223.
Schmidt, R. A. (1980). Past and future issues in motor programming. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 122-140.
Schmidt, R. A. (1985). The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 188-200.
Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and Naming (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366-375.
Sherwood, D. E., & Lee, T. D. (2003). Schema theory: Critical review and implications for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 376-382.
Sherwood, D. E., & Rios, V. (2001). Divided attention in bimanual aiming movement: Effects on movement accuracy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 210-218.
Slater-Hammel, A. T. (1958). Psychological refractory period in simple paired responses. The Research Quarterly, 29, 468-481.
Spirduso, W. W. (1983). Exercise and the aging brain. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54, 208-218.
Stelmach, G. E., & Larish, D. D. (1980). A new perspective on motor skill automation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 141-157.
Sternad, D. (1998). A dynamic systems perspective to perception and action. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 319-325.
Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 385-397.
Thomas, J. R. (1980). Acquisition of motor skills: Information processing difference between children and adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 158-173.
Thomas, J. R. (1989). Naturalistic research can drive motor development theory. In J. Skinner, C. Corbin, D. Landers, P. Martin, & C. Wells (Eds.), Future directions in exercise and sport science research (pp. 349-367). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thomas, J. R. (1997). Motor behavior. In J. D. Massengale & R. A. Swanson (Eds.), The history of exercise and sport science (pp., 203-292). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thomas, J. R. (2000). Children's control, learning, and performance of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 1-9.
Walter, C. W. (1998). An alternative view of dynamical systems concepts in motor control and learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 319-333.
Walter, C. W., Lee, T. D., & Sternad, D. (1998). The dynamic systems approach to motor control and learning: Promises, potential limitations, and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 316-318.
Welford, A. T. (1972). The obtaining and processing of information: Some basic issues relating to analyzing inputs and making decisions. Research Quarterly, 43, 295-311.
Whitacre, C. A., & Shea, C. H. (2002). The role of parameter variability on retention, parameter transfer, and effect or transfer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 47-57.
Whitall, J. (1995). The evolution of research on motor development: New approaches bringing new insights. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 23, 243-273.
Whiting, H. T. A. (1972). Overview of the skill learning process. Research Quarterly, 43, 266-294.
Wilberg, R. B. (1972). A suggested direction for the study of motor performance by physical educators. Research Quarterly, 43, 387-393.
Williams, A. M., Weigelt, C., Harris, M., & Scott, M. A. (2002). Age related differences in vision and proprioception in a lower limb interceptive task: The effects of skill level and practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 386-395.
Williams, L. R. T., Katene, W. H., & Fleming, K. (2002). Coincidence timing of a tennis stroke: Effects of age, skill level, gender, stimulus velocity, and attention demand. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 28-37.
Wulf, G., McNevin, N. H., Fuchs, T., Ritter, E, & Toole, T. (2000). Attentional focus in complex skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 229-239.
Yan, J. H., &Thomas, J. R. (2002). Arm movement control: Differences between children with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(1), 10-18.
Authors' Notes
The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper from Lanie Dornier, Melanie Hart, and Dale Ulrich. Please address all correspondence concerning this article to Beverly D. Ulrich, Division of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2214.
E-mail: bdulrich@umich.edu
