2022, Volume 18, Issue 1
A method of diagnosing body control errors during a simple motor activity in relation to cognitive-behavioural influence on personal safety
Artur Kruszewski1, Bartłomiej Gąsienica Walczak2
1Department of Individual Sports, Jozef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
2Health Institute, Podhale State College of Applied Sciences in Nowy Targ, Nowy Targ, Poland
Author for correspondence: Bartłomiej Gąsienica Walczak; Health Institute, Podhale State College of Applied Sciences in Nowy Targ, Nowy Targ, Poland; email: bartlomiej.gasienica@ppuz.edu.pl
Full text
Abstract
Background & Study Aim: Ergonomic human activity during daily activities helps protect against various health risks, but also makes the activity more effective. During ontogenesis, correct mechanisms are replaced by incorrect ones. A child of 3-4 years old uses lower limb flexion to pick up an object from the ground, while adults usually perform forward bending (putting undue strain on the spine). This is an important consideration from the perspective of personal safety concerns. The aim of this study is to find out body control during a simple motor activity in relation to cognitive-behavioural influence on personal safety.
Material & Methods: A total of 108 (80 females and 28 males) physiotherapy students aged 21.4 ±1.54 years (62.32 ±10.24kg, 170.9 ±8.21 cm) were studied. he students were randomly divided into educated on safe falling by the rigorous method (A), n = 54 and trained by a method that preferred playful forms of exercises (B), n = 54. In each of the six education groups, the exercises observed in this experiment were performed first by students A (and students B observed the events). Motor tasks were first performed without additional restraints, then with an object – a notebook – on their head. The task consisted of walking with a change of direction on an 8x5 metre mat while holding a tennis ball in the palm of the upright hand. At a signal, students vigorously dropped the ball and grabbed it with both hands, after bouncing off the ground at set heights – chin, hips, knees and below the knees, in sequence. After grasping the ball, the students remained motionless for 2-3 seconds. From the second series of exercises (with the object on the head), the grasping of the ball at chin height was eliminated and the remaining three "test heights" were asked alternately without a fixed key. It was a mistake to perform a forward bend instead of a half squat or a squat (according to the set height of the ball grasp), i.e. using the cushioning function of the lower limbs. In the second series of exercises, if the student performed the task correctly in an ergonomic sense, the fall of the notebook from the head was not considered an error.
Results: The smallest number of students (on average about 15%; A: 17.9%; B: 12.3%) erred in catching the ball at chin height. At hip height, errors averaged 97.2% (A: 98.8%; B: 95.7%). During the first series, no student correctly caught the ball at or below knee height. A modification of the second series of exercises (notebook overhead) resulted in an improvement in performance: grasping the ball at hip height errors were reduced, respectively A to 72.2%, B to 88.3% (p<0.05); at knee height A to 85.8%, B to 92%; at below-knee height A to 84.6%, B to 87%.
Conclusions: The opportunity of the B students to observe both series of exercises in advance (cognitive aspect) was not a sufficient stimulus to modify the quality of their repetition of the same motor tasks (behavioural aspect). Thus, there are grounds to argue – abstracting from the motor patterns in the family and in the everyday social environment – that a physical education formula modelled on sports techniques does not provide stimuli to stimulate this cognitive-behavioural layer of adaptation to rational (ergonomic) motor action.
Key words: innovative agonology, motor safety, special motor skills
