The effects of contextual relevance and ownership on a reaching and placing task

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated whether a more familiar environment and object ownership would result in enhanced motor performance. Methods: Thirty-two women from the community aged 30 to 60 years lifted and placed their mug and a second mug they did not own in their home kitchen and in a laboratory. Results: Although no differences were found on the factor of location, participants were more efficient (i.e. less movement time) when reaching for their own mug. Additionally, there were fewer movement units with their own mug in the lab than when at home. Conclusions: Implications are that perceived compatibility between context and ownership may influence the quality of movement. Further research is needed to investigate the role these factors have in the formation of meaning.

Influence of Purposeful Activities on Upper Extremity Motor Performance: A Systematic Review

“…Characteristics of the studies and main results are presented in Table 4. The purposeful activities used in the studies included: personal care (Taylor et al, 2018); writing (Ross & Nelson, 2000;Wu et al, 1994); eating (Hall & Nelson, 1998); using chopsticks (Ma et al, 1999;Rice et al, 2009); reaching for candy (Sackaloo et al, 2015), a mug (Holubar & Rice, 2006;Rice et al, 2009), a bell (Lin et al, 1998;Morton et al, 1992) or a magazine (Rice & Renock, 2006); meal preparation tasks (e.g., slicing vegetables or making cookies) (Fasoli et al, 2002;Hoppe et al, 2008;Miller & Nelson, 1987;Rice et al, 1999;Wu et al, 1998); woodwork or handcrafts (Bakshi et al, 1991); and board or computer games, throwing darts or ping-pong (Kehoe & Rice, 2016;King, 1993;Steinbeck, 1986;Wagner et al, 1995).…”

“…Ten studies measured percentage of movement time to reach or maintain peak velocity, but only five studies found statistically significant differences. Movement time was measured in 13 studies, with eight studies reporting quicker movement during the purposeful activity condition (Fasoli et al, 2002;Holubar & Rice, 2006;Lin et al, 1998;Rice et al, 2009;Ross & Nelson, 2000;Sackaloo et al, 2015;Wu et al, 1994) or virtual reality (Kehoe & Rice, 2016). Large effects were demonstrated in two of these studies (Fasoli et al, 2002; Kehoe Bakshi et al 19911 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 Fasoli et al (2002) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15 Hall and Nelson (1998) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 Holubar and Rice (2006) 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 Hoppe et al 20081 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 13 Kehoe and Rice 20161 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 King (1993) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 Lin et al (1998) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 13 Ma et al (1999) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15 Miller and Nelson (1987) et al (1992) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 10 Rice et al 19991 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 13 Rice et al 20091 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 Rice and Renock (2006) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Ross and Nelson (2000) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 Sackaloo et al 20151 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15 Steinbeck (1986) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 14 Taylor et al 20181…”

“…Reaction time was measured by Ross and Nelson (2000) and Wu et al (1998), and was faster during purposeful activity in both studies. Eleven studies measured movement units, an indicator of movement smoothness calculated by summing the number of times acceleration went from negative to positive to negative (Holubar & Rice, 2006;Kehoe & Rice, 2016). Seven of these studies showed small to medium effects of purposeful activity in producing fewer movement units (Rice et al, 1999;Ross & Nelson, 2000;Wu et al, 1994), when participants used their own objects (Holubar & Rice, 2006), reached for preferred items during the experiment (Rice & Renock, 2006;Sackaloo et al, 2015), or were visually exposed to the objects for longer periods of time (Rice et al, 2009).…”

“…The degree to which the activities or occupations held purpose or meaning for participants was therefore unknown. Many of the activities in the studies could be considered repetitious and purposeless, such as ringing a bell, or placing a can or mug onto a shelf (Holubar & Rice, 2006;Lin et al, 1998;Rice et al, 1999). Even in the study by Bakshi and colleagues (1991) where activities were self-selected, choice was limited to eight activities and their perceived value was unknown.…”

Let's Kinect to Increase Balance and Coordination of Older People: Pilot Testing of a Balloon Catching Game

“…In addition rehabilitation requires consideration of the principles of motor learning [45][46][47][48][49] in order to produce optimal outcomes. These include: the benefits of functional and meaningful activities on the retention of skill; [50][51][52] the use of functional tasks [50][51][52]; the need for task specificity where the rehabilitation components focus on the desired outcome (in this case being able to maintain balance in standing and respond to perturbations of balance); and the need for high levels of repetition and balance [53,54]. Balloon volleyball aligns to these key principles.…”