Session I, part II (Motor Development: Re

Review • Dynamical systems theory explains change in systems that exchange energy with the surrounding environment • DST explains how behavior changes through self organization – typically no one teaches a child to run… – speed is the catalyst

Motor Development Re-conceptualizing Developmental Change in Movement Patterns

Life Span Motor Development Evolution of a Theory & Research Program

In the beginning...a clinician!  a knowledge of neurodevelopmental theory  a fascination with righting and equilibrium reactions  a love for movement analysis

Neurodevelopmental Theory  development is a process of reflex integration Motor  lower level automatic behavior gives way to Ctx Midbrain higher level volitional Brain stem Level control Spinal Level

Neurodevelopmental Theory  Progressive  Positive  Add Abilities  End State Oriented (maturity is the end state)

Neurodevelopmental Theory  CNS = Cause of Change

Biological Theory of Aging...  Regressive  Negative  Loss of Abilities  End state oriented (end state = death)

Life Span Theory

 Development followed by Aging

Milani - Comparetti

Milani Comparetti = my personal Control Variable!

Change of State

Virginia... (1970s)

Wisconsin (1980s)

The Doctoral Experience

Roberton’s Component Model Developmental Stages of Throwing

Reliability of assigning Stages Developmental Change within Components of Body Action

Component Model of Development  Upper Limbs  Axial Region  Lower Limbs

Lawrence & Kuypers

Three descending control systems medial system – controls axial region lateral system – controls proximal limb movements in primate studies the lateral system allowed for differentiated arm movements

cortical system – controls distal movements in primate studies allowed individuated finger movments

Straying into Systems models Not just one big hierarchy Roberton was studying development in those systems!

Applying Roberton’s Method Taking it to a new task  From Throwing to Righting

Learning the Research Process

Righting Reactions Developed during 1st year of life Rolling to prone Up on hands and knees Into sitting Quadruped to kneeling Kneeling to Half Kneel Up to Stand

Righting Reactions • Movements couple together to assume erect stance • Foundation for Physical Independence

Righting Reactions

First Rotational movements then Symmetrical But observations of young adults in PT school revealed all were not using symmetrical form

Studies of Righting Rising to Standing from the Floor Young Adults

Why Young Adults? variability in PT students impressive a very few showed symmetrical form when rising

Roberton examined variability to get stages of throwing  Lifespan perspective  hypothesis: variation was “developmental”

Sequences If person is in a stage he/she shows stable behavior characteristic of that stage If a person is moving from one stage to another shows variable behavior characteristic of those two neighboring stages

Studies of Righting Rising to Standing from the Floor Young Adults Variability continued to be impressive across 10 trials Described action in each of three components of body action  able to identify neighboring stages for each body region

Really out on a Limb

Studies of Righting Rising to Standing from the Floor Children Age differences confirmed sequences of movement pattern development identified from adult patterns of variation Component Model affirmed