تأثیر دست‌برتری و دشواری تکلیف بر پهنای مؤثر هدف و دقت زمانی تکلیف مبادلۀ سرعت- دقت فیتز

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

2 کارشناس ارشد رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر، بررسی تأثیر دست­برتری و دشواری تکلیف بر پهنای مؤثر هدف و دقت زمانی تکلیف مبادلۀ سرعت- دقت فیتز بود. پژوهش حاضر از نوع پژوهش‌های نیمه‌تجربی بود. ابزار مورد استفاده شامل پرسشنامۀ دست برتری ادینبورگ، قلم نوری، دستگاه سنجش مبادلۀ سرعت- دقت، لپ‌تاپ، کرنومتر و مترونوم بود. جامعۀ آماری پژوهش را دانش‌آموزان 14 و 15 ساله و نمونه را 20 نفر تشکیل دادند (20=n) که به روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس در پژوهش شرکت کردند. آزمودنی‌ها به دو گروه 10 نفرۀ راست‌دست و چپ‌دست تقسیم شدند. هر آزمودنی چهار کوشش 30 ثانیه‌ای تکلیف ضربه‌زنی دوطرفه به اهداف موردنظر را هماهنگ با صدای مترونوم انجام می‌داد. کوشش‌ها شامل دو تکلیف آسان و دشوار بود که آزمودنی هر تکلیف را با دست برتر و غیربرتر، هماهنگ با صدای مترونوم که با ضرباهنگ 300 هزارم ثانیه تنظیم شده بود، انجام داد. برای تحلیل آماری داده‌ها از تحلیل واریانس با اندازه‌گیری‌های تکراری در سطح معنا‌داری 05/0 استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که دست­برتری و دشواری تکلیف بر پهنای مؤثر هدف تأثیر معناداری ندارد (973/0p= و 611/0p=). همچنین دست­برتری بر میانگین وقفۀ زمانی نیز تأثیر نداشت (135/0p= و 785/0p=)، ولی در اندام غیربرتر میانگین وقفۀ زمانی برای تکلیف دشوار بیش از تکلیف آسان بود (001/0p=). به‌نظر می‌رسد شرکت‌کنندگان در تکالیف دشوار با کاهش سرعت حرکت سعی می‌کنند میزان خطای فضایی را ثابت نگه‌دارند و سرعت را فدای دقت فضایی می‌کنند. همچنین خطای زمانی (میانگین وقفه) بیشتر تحت تأثیر دشواری تکلیف است تا دست­برتری.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Handedness and Task Difficulty on Effective Target Width and Temporal Accuracy in Fitts’ Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Task

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammadreza Doustan 1
  • Leila Farzad 2
  • Esmaeel Saemi 1
  • Maliheh Niknam 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 MSc of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of handedness and task difficulty on effective target width and temporal accuracy of the Fitts’ speed-accuracy tradeoff task. The present study was semi-experimental and the tools used included Edinburgh handedness questionnaire, light pen, speed-accuracy measurement device, laptop, chronometer, and metronome. The statistical population consisted of students aged between 14 and 15. The sample included 20 students who participated in this study by convenience sampling method. They were divided into two groups: left-hand and right-hand (each group 10 subjects). Each participant performed 4 trials (each trial 30 seconds) of dual target tapping task in rhythm with the metronome sound. The trials consisted of two easy and difficult tasks and each subject performed each task with dominant and not-dominant hands in rhythm with the metronome sound set up at 300 milliseconds. For statistical analysis of data, variance analysis with repeated measures was used at the significance level of 0.05. The results showed that in dominant hand, the handedness and difficulty of the task had no significant effect on the effective width of the target (P=0.973, P=0.611). Also, the handedness did not affect the average time lag (P=0.135, P=0.785), but in non-dominant hand, the average time lag was more for the difficult task than the simple task (P=0.001). In difficult tasks, participants seem to be trying to keep the spatial error rate constant by reducing the speed of the movement and to sacrifice speed for the spatial accuracy. Also, the time error (mean lag) is more influenced by the difficulty of the task than the handedness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Fitts’ law
  • handedness
  • target width
  • task difficulty

1. Schmidt R A LTD. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 4, editor: Human Kinetics; 2005.

2. Van Veen V, Krug MK, Carter CS. The neural and computational basis of controlled speed-accuracy tradeoff during task performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008;20(11):1952-65.

3. Rozand V, Lebon F, Papaxanthis C, Lepers R. Effect of mental fatigue on speed–accuracy trade-off. Neuroscience. 2015;297:219-30.

4. Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of experimental psychology. 1954;47(6):381.

5. Elliott D, Hansen S, Grierson LE, Lyons J, Bennett SJ, Hayes SJ. Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychological bulletin. 2010;136(6):1023.

6. Ifft P, Lebedev M, Nicolelis MA. Cortical correlates of Fitts’ law. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience. 2011;5:85.

7. Plamondon R, Alimi AM. Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behavioral and brain sciences. 1997;20(2):279-303.

8. Danion F, Bongers RM, Bootsma RJ. The trade-off between spatial and temporal variabilities in reciprocal upper-limb aiming movements of different durations. PloS one. 2014;9(5):e97447.

9. Peternel L, Sigaud O, Babič J. Unifying speed-accuracy trade-off and cost-benefit trade-off in human reaching movements. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2017;11:615.

10. Shadmehr R, De Xivry JJO, Xu-Wilson M, Shih T-Y. Temporal discounting of reward and the cost of time in motor control. Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30(31):10507-16.

11. Rigoux L, Guigon E. A model of reward-and effort-based optimal decision making and motor control. PLoS computational biology. 2012;8(10):e1002716.

12. Young WB, Bilby GE. The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy development. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 1993;7(3):172-8.

13. Green L, Myerson J. A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological bulletin. 2004;130(5):769.

14. Grouios G. Right hand advantage in visually guided reaching and aiming movements: brief review and comments. Ergonomics. 2006;49(10):1013-7.

15. Bagi J, Kudachi, P., & Goudar, S. . Influence of motor task on handedness. Al Ameen Journal of Medical Sciences. 2011;4(1):87-91.

16. Asai T, Sugimori E, Tanno Y. Two agents in the brain: motor control of unimanual and bimanual reaching movements. PloS one. 2010;5(4):e10086.

17. Moghadam A NNM, Rezaeian F. Comparation of the effect of ipsilateral and contralateral eye-hand dominant on the accuracy of the free throwing of basketball players. Quarterly Journal of Sport Sciences. 2002;2(8):35-44.

18. Bisiacchi PS, Ripoll H, Stein JF, Simonet P, Azemar G. Left-handedness in fencers: An attentional advantage? Perceptual and motor skills. 1985;61(2):507-13.

19. Gursoy R. Effects of left-or right-hand preference on the success of boxers in Turkey. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2009;43(2):142-4.

20. Holtzen DW. Handedness and professional tennis. International Journal of neuroscience. 2000;105(1-4):101-19.

21. Mickevičienė D, Motiejūnaitė K, Karanauskienė D, Skurvydas A, Vizbaraitė D, Krutulytė G, et al. Gender-dependent bimanual task performance. Medicina. 2011;47(9):73.

22. Parish A, Dwelly P, Baghurst T, Lirgg C. Effect of handedness on gross motor skill acquisition in a novel sports skill task. Perceptual and motor skills. 2013;117(2):449-56.

23. Zuoza A, Skurvydas A, Mickeviciene D, Gutnik B, Zouzene D, Penchev B, et al. Behavior of dominant and non dominant arms during ballistic protractive target-directed movements. Human physiology. 2009;35(5):576-84.

24. Kabbash P, MacKenzie IS, Buxton W, editors. Human performance using computer input devices in the preferred and non-preferred hands. Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1993: ACM.

25. Stöckel T, Weigelt M. Brain lateralisation and motor learning: Selective effects of dominant and non-dominant hand practice on the early acquisition of throwing skills. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition. 2012;17(1):18-37.

26. Lenhard A, Hoffmann J. Constant error in aiming movements without visual feedback is higher in the preferred hand. Laterality. 2007;12(3):227-38.

27. Harris LJ. In fencing, what gives left-handers the edge? Views from the present and the distant past. Laterality. 2010;15(1-2):15-55.

28. Goldstein SR, Young CA. " Evolutionary" stable strategy of handedness in major league baseball. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 1996;110(2):164.

29. Grondin S, Guiard Y, Ivry RB, Koren S. Manual laterality and hitting performance in major league baseball. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1999;25(3):747.

30. Brooks R, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD, Hunt J. Sinister strategies succeed at the cricket World Cup. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 2004;271(suppl_3):S64-S6.

31. Grouios G. Motoric dominance and sporting excellence: Training versus heredity. Perceptual and motor skills. 2004;98(1):53-66.

32. Latash ML. Neurophysiological basis of movement: Human Kinetics; 2008.

33. Taheri H R TR, Kheyrandish A. . the effect of manipulated of the distance and width of target on learning in basketball free threw: according to index of difficulty. Motor Behavior. 2014;19(1):15-30. (in persian)

34. Gutnik B, Skurvydas A, Zuoza A, Zuoziene I, Mickevičienė D, Alekrinskis B, et al. Influence of spatial accuracy constraints on reaction time and maximum speed of performance of unilateral movements. Perceptual and motor skills. 2015;120(2):519-33.

35. Hancock PA, Newell KM. The movement speed-accuracy relationship in space-time. Motor Behavior: Springer; 1985. p. 153-88.

36. Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn Jr JT. Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological review. 1979;86(5):415.

37. Harris CM, Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 1998;394(6695):780.

38. Todorov E, Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature neuroscience. 2002;5(11):1226.

39. Selen LP, Beek PJ, Van Dieën JH. Impedance is modulated to meet accuracy demands during goal-directed arm movements. Experimental Brain Research. 2006;172(1):129-38.