Throwing Kinematics and Children’s
Abilities in the Imaginary Ball
Situation
By Peter Capucilli
Under the direction of
John J. Rieser, Ph.D.
Introduction
• Preliminary study by
Rieser et al. (2005)
• Children (3-5 years
old) illustrated a
difference in
throwing technique
when throwing a
tangible ball versus
throwing a pretend
ball.
Our Goals
• To understand how children throw in
the imaginary situation?
• Determine age at which children
adjust throwing technique to
correctly account for altered
distances?
• Determine factors that might
contribute?
The Broader Picture
Theoretical Implications
• Future understanding of neurological process in
imaginary throwing.
• Understanding a greater piece of children’s
development.
Practical Implications
• Training
• Rehabilitation/Conditioning
Past Research
• Preliminary Study - Rieser et al. (2005)
• Lillard (1998) - Young children lack understanding
of the connection between cognitive understanding
and physical representation in pretence
• Mah, Ferdinaldo & Mussa-Ivaldi (2003) - Mapping
of learned kinematic motions only occurs on tasks
requiring same technique
Pilot Testing
Blind Feedback Test
Holding Ball Test
What we realized…
• Our initial
plans were not
the best of
plans…
Blocking For Distance
• Three consecutive
throws on a single
target.
•Targets move in
increasing order from
shortest distance to
furthest distance.
Original Hypothesis
• 3-4 year olds: Real Ball - Succeed
Pretend Ball - Fail (to illustrate
adult-like change in
throwing kinematics)
• 5-7 year olds: Real Ball - Succeed
Pretend Ball - Some succeed, some fail
• Adults: Real Ball - Succeed
Pretend Ball - Succeed
Study 1
• Total (n=24) participants.
•Regular developing.
• 3.9-22.4 years of age
•Equal number of males and females evaluated.
• 4 distinct distances (Blocked)
• Three trials per distance
Variables
Independent Variables
•Throw Distances - Children (1m, 3m 5m, 10m)
(Blocked)
- Adults (1m, 7m, 15m, 40m)
• Trial Number - 3 throws at each target (Blocked)
• Throw Condition - Real/Pretend
- Pretend/Real
• Age - Children (3-4), Children (4-7), Adults (18+)
Dependent Variables
• Actual Distance Thrown
• # of throw strategies used
Distance/Accuracy Scale Sheet
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Pretend Throwing Kinematics Scoring Guide
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Study 2
•Verbal Study
• (n=11) Children participants, (n=8) Adult participants
• Four Questions: Which distance was the hardest and
which distance was the easiest to throw/pretend to
throw to in each condition.
•Independent Variable: Questions
•Dependent Variable: Children’s and Adult’s answers
• Mean averages coded
•Results did not prove significant to study
Results
•Statistical Tests conducted using SPSS and Excel:
Two Way Analysis of Variance (repeated measures on
variables, within subjects), T-tests
•Did Target Distance exert significant effect on
Throw Distance?
MAIN EFFECT FOR ALL
PARTICIPANTS
•Did Trial Number exert significant effect on
Throw Distances?
MAIN EFFECT ONLY IN YOUNG
CHILDREN
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Results cont.
• Coded Videotapes using “Pretend Throwing
Kinematics Scoring Guide”
• 3-4 Year Olds (5/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities)
• 5-7 Year Olds (8/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities)
• Adults (8/8 illustrated adult-like capabilities)
*Ratios based on participants ability
to illustrate adult-like capabilities
at least once
•Total # of changes across intervals also calculated
Pretend Throw Technique Results
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Discussion
Key Findings
•Both young and older children’s displayed adult-like
technique in Pretend Condition
•Contrary to original hypothesis
Unanticipated Findings
•Influence of informal pilot testing
•Young children exposure to throwing task in daycare not
considered
Limitations
•Subjective video tape analysis
•Lengthy patience require
•Blocking for distance
Future Directions…
• Large scale analysis of each age range
•Extended research under randomized
trials with increased age range
•Extensive interview conducted postthrowing trial to understand specific
actions utilized in Pretend Condition
•Altered experimenter verbal instruction
General Summary
•In the Pretend Condition, children do not account for the
appropriate changes in throwing kinematics associated with
altering distances of a target, if targets are presented in a
randomized order.
•When distances are blocked over three trials, and targets
are presented with distance increasing, children begin to
illustrate adult-like throwing patterns in the Pretend
Condition.
•Confirmation of blocking for distance as the variable
associated with children’s success in the imaginary situation
might only be supported by future statistical analysis as well
as additional tests associated with differences among ages,
as well as cognitive understanding of one’s displayed
action.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the team of researchers associated with this
study. A special thank you to Gayathri Narasimham for her time
and dedication to this project. Additional thanks to Karen
Rieser, Dr. Craig Smith, Dr. Sue Hespos, and Dr. Michael Rose
for their undying support. Thank you to my family.
Thank you to Jonathan Herberg and Dr. Tom Carr for
their contribution to the defense.
Finally, I thank Dr. John Rieser for his wonderful
mentorship and active participation in research, as well as his
confidence to allow me the freedom to think, discover and
imagine. I also thank John for his kind human spirit, as well as
his respect and interest in my overall wellbeing. I believe this
to be a rare quality of such a well-regarded professor.
-p.s.c
References:
Brenner, Eli, Smeets, B.J., & Jeroen. (1997). Fast responses of the human hand to
changes in target position. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 297-310.
Conditt, A., Michael, Gandolfo, F., Mussa-Ivaldi, A.F. (1997). The
motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. Journal-of-Neurophysiology. 78,
554-560.
D’Avella, Andrea, Saltiel, Philippe, Bizzi, Emilio. (2003). Combinations of muscle synergies in the
construction of a natural motor behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 300-308.
DeMarie-Dreblow, Darlene, Miller, Patricia, H. (1988). The Development of Children’s Strategies for
Selective Attention: Evidence for a Transitional Period. Child Development, 59, 1504-1513.
Hore, Jon, Watts, Sherry. (2005). Timing finger opening in overarm throwing based
on a spatial representation of Hand Path. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 3189-3199.
Ivanchenko, V., Jacobs, A.R. (2003). A developmental approach aids motor learning.
Neural Computation, 15, 2051-2065.
Lillard, S, Angeline. (1998). Wanting to Be It: Children’s Understanding of Intentions Underlying Pretense. Child Development,
69, 981-993.
Mah, D, Christopher, Ferdinando, A. Mussa-Ivaldi. (2003). Generalization of object
manipulation skills learned without limb motion. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 4821-4825.
Padoa-Schioppa, Camillo, Li, R., Chiang-Shan, Bizzi, Emilio. (2004). Neural zctivity in
the supplementary motor areas of monkeys adapting to a new dynamic environment. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 449-473.
References:
Peters, Michael. (1997). Gender differences in intercepting a moving target by using a
throw or button press. Journal-of-Motor-Behavior, 29, 290-296.
Poggio, Tomaso, Bizzi, Emilio. (2004). Gernalization in vision and motor control.
nature, 431, 768-774.
Rider, A.E., Rieser J.J. (1988). Pointing at objects in other rooms: young children’s
sensitivity to perspective after walking with and without vision. Child Development, 58, 480-494.
Timman, D., Watts, S., Hore, J. (1999) Failure of cerebellar patients to time finger
opening precisely causes ball high-low inaccuracy in overarm throws.
Journal-of-Neurophysiology, 82, 103-114.
Todorov, Emanuel, Shadmehr, Reza, Bizzi, Emilio. (1997). Augmented feedback
presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29:2, 147-158.