Dirk Koester- Faculty Sport Sciences and Personality, Business & Law School, Berlin, Germany
An ongoing debate exists regarding the compatibility of dynamic systems theory (DST) and symbol processing accounts (SPA), where SPA assume abstract representations and processing. Another aspect under discussion is if either one appropriately describes and explains motor control and the modification of motor skills. Both frameworks have their strengths and weaknesses. DST provides mechanistic explanations and takes system complexity and the environment into account without reference to mental entities. System behaviour is described mathematically and considered deterministic. In contrast, SPA propose that abstract content, that is, mental representations of the (own) body, and task requirements are critically important for movement control. It is argued that neither approach nor an (unaccomplished) unification of these frameworks can achieve a comprehensive understanding of motor control and learning. In this perspective article, it is argued that further effective sources of motor learning, such as emotional support and motivational guidance, have the potential to improve and preserve motor skills indirectly and should, thus, be recognised. Qualitative approaches focussing on understanding the athlete and the situation might be appropriate for applied work.
1. Introduction
This perspective article calls for terminological precision when referring to theoretical foundations and advocates a broader perspective on motor control and learning. Learning refers to the modification of our action repertoire. More specifically, motor (or skill) learning refers to the long-term process of acquiring and improving (actually changing) goal-oriented movements, specifically muscle activation patterns [cf. (1–3)]. In contrast, motor adaptation can be differentiated from skill learning in that it refers to shorter responses during learning [cf. (4), including a discussion of the role of errors, reinforcement, and reward]. Skill learning can proceed implicitly or explicitly. Thus, explicit (including verbal) input from the environment or other persons, such as observation, instruction, or feedback, can foster motor learning.
A comprehensive understanding of skill learning is essential because motor skills are required throughout the lifetime and in almost all aspects of daily life. Strengthening skill learning is necessary to achieve high performance levels and reduce sedentary behaviours and associated health-related costs for societies. Relatedly, physical activity and motor abilities have declined significantly in (mainly Western) societies in recent decades [e.g., (5–8)], with some recent stagnation (9, 10). A comprehensive perspective is needed not only to maximise peak (sport) performance but also to optimally support the acquisition, improvement (e.g., in physical education), and rehabilitation after impairment of basic motor skills.
Understanding human skill learning is not trivial because of the complexity of the movement system, incl. all bones, joints, and muscles [for related discussions such as the motor–action controversy, see (11)]. Moreover, there are various other influential factors such as external stimuli (physical to social), biological energy supplies, nervous control structures, and psychological states [cf. (12)]. All these factors should be considered to provide optimal support for skill learning. A comprehensive scientific theory may reduce potential influences to the basic effective factors, and such a theory needs to explain a wide range of actions. Not limited to sports, we need to understand how humans perform actions with the highest precision demands (e.g., dart throwing and clockmaking), maximum force (e.g., weightlifting and construction work), high speed (e.g., sprinting and running), or even a combination thereof (e.g., pole vaulting and forging). Given the complexity of human movement control (incl. aims), a comprehensive theoretical basis is required for optimal support.
2. Theoretical approaches
Two contrasting classes of scientific approaches, namely, dynamic systems theory (DST) and symbol processing accounts (SPA), will be discussed to understand human movement control and learning. The underlying foundations appear incompatible, and missing factors will be considered, contributing to the difficulty of reaching a comprehensive, unified account.
2.1. Dynamic systems theory
To understand (i.e., describe) the overall behavioural variability of highly complex systems (e.g., humans), DST considers all the system components (e.g., body parts, muscles, and organs) and environmental influences. Any system behaviour is construed as a pattern (of change or action), and these patterns can either be stable over a range of relevant variables or change within a small (critical) range of system variables. The interplay of variables and, thus, the system behaviour are described in a set of mathematical formulas. The mathematical equations of DST originate in physics [cf. (13)] but have been applied explicitly to “both animate and inanimate systems” (14, p. 3) [see also (15)]. Movement coordination and cyclic movements have often been focussed on. According to DST, motor control is inherently less demanding (actually, it assumes no control entity) because the properties of the body parts (e.g., length, masses, and tissue stiffness) contribute to movement control [as system subcomponents, e.g., damping of the movement end; cf. (16)].
The main objective is to describe the changes in a system over time, which is an important aspect of DST. The term “dynamic” refers specifically to the dependency of variables on their values at an earlier point in time. Technically speaking, the previous system state at time xn−1 determines the system state at time xn (variables may, of course, also be influenced by other variables). Such mathematically described developments over time indicate causal relationships. That is, the changes in system states are deterministic (14, p. 19) [cf. (17) for an application to psychology; (18), as cited in (19)]. Deterministic processes are interesting because they have the potential to (fully) explain phenomena, although such explanations require measuring (all) relevant variables to go beyond a mere description (i.e., to provide evidence for the explanation).
Furthermore, the deterministic nature of DST makes any higher-order control structure unnecessary (14, pp. 26). The changes in a system behaviour (pattern) result mechanistically from the current system state and the previous state. This is referred to as self-organisation and a central property of DST (14, p. 8, ch. 2). Consequently, the changes in the system state over time (e.g., the unfolding of movements) are fully determined by current and previous variable values. No mental state, symbolic representation, or processing is required for system control [e.g., for movement execution; cf. (20)].
Although rigorous regarding the target phenomenon (deterministic with mathematical precision), DST is interesting because it can describe a wide range of movements with a single set of equations. The system behaviour is described as stable and flexible (14, p. 20). For example, walking (a cyclic movement pattern) is more or less constant (stable) across a speed range. If the speed increases to a certain point, then the movement pattern changes drastically (e.g., into running) within a narrow speed range (flexible). Similarly, for running, the movement pattern is stable across a wider speed range. Furthermore, such models do not contain logical (or intellectual) relations, for example, in the sense of if (the speed is greater than X) then (switch to running)—rules.
Based on the DST framework, multiple variable learning episodes (experience) should generalise and improve specific skills (21). These ideas have been conceptually applied to practise, in that athletes are given multiple different movements as instructions to improve and maximise their motor skills [e.g., (22–24)]. Proponents assume that stable movement patterns (which are optimal for a given situation) emerge due to widely varied experiences.
2.2. Symbol processing accounts
In contrast, symbol processing accounts assume that human actions, that is, body movements, are controlled by a motor plan or instruction (25). These commands to move are abstract entities (symbols or internal representations) with specific meanings. The motor commands (and their sequence) result solely from computations (information processing) on smaller units, such as movement parts, intentions, and other external information such as distance to goal. The origin of SPA dates back to the cognitive turn of the 1960s, when the “mind and brain as computer” metaphor developed and plans as hierarchical descriptions (from strategies to muscle commands) became central to understanding behaviour (26). Plans were computed as sets of instructions for the intended behaviour. These computations can be compared metaphorically to sentence construction [from words and grammar rules (27), but see (28)]. Hence, SPA can be said to be language-like.
In addition to mechanistic motor control such as reflexes, SPA extends the mode of movement control to voluntary actions, which do not depend on any stimulus. This “openness” to mental states (e.g., goals and reflections) is one strength of SPA as it implies a non-deterministic perspective on human actions [i.e., it is not physically causally closed; e.g., (29)]. The openness to mental states provides a theoretical basis for applied work, for example, mental training (30–32). In addition, these accounts can incorporate reasoned decisions in computations (e.g., logical thinking or conditional choices); that is, an argument can be incorporated, which appears natural given that many of our actions are perceived as reasoned decisions. Another advantage is that researchers can perform computations (static, statistical models) based on empirical data.
A fundamental issue with SPA is that it remains unknown how representations “emerge” from physiological activity [cf. 33, 34]. In a similar vein, it remains unclear how a representing neuronal signal can stand for something else, namely, the entity it refers to, and how mental states (e.g., intentions, goals, arguments, and decisions) influence the biological level, that is, the functions of the nervous system. SPA is described to be disembodied [processing is understood in terms of symbols or propositions, and motor control parameters are largely ignored; cf. (35–37)].
The so-called degree-of-freedom problem is another illustrative limitation of SPA [first described by (38); (39, 40) for discussion]. Given a specific movement goal, for example, reaching an endpoint (e.g., a cup of tea), there are many trajectories to perform the movement. Yet, such a movement does not pose any difficulty in real life. Nevertheless, evaluating all possible trajectories to determine the optimal one seems impossible. The fact that even computers cannot achieve such calculations in real time (as fast as humans or animals perform such actions) indicates that the approach is conceptually inadequate; hence, other research strategies are pursued [e.g., (41)].
3. Discussion
The SPA and DST frameworks can be construed as diametrically opposing endpoints of a spectrum of theories, both having advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately, they cannot be “merged” without losing the advantages; these frameworks are incommensurable paradigms (42, 43). In brief, DST is deterministic and does not need “expert supervision” [i.e., a dedicated control structure, cf. (14, pp. 8, 26; 20)]. In addition, DST makes mathematical predictions for all time points, and for a prediction, (initial) variables need to be known with infinite precision (“exact”). Consequently, DST must be seen as descriptive in nature and not explanatory. DST cannot be used for a specific case because not all variables can be measured nor measured exactly.
In contrast, SPA are open to mental influences and cannot be deterministic (in the sense of physical causation). The SPA are applicable to empirical data, that is, to specific cases, mostly as statistical associations (rather than full deterministic relations). Furthermore, SPA are easier to develop, for example, in light of new data or insights; it is easier to edit, add, or remove variables. Because the advantages of one framework are almost the disadvantages of the other (e.g., a theory or framework can either be deterministic or not), any attempt to somehow merge these frameworks would erase the respective advantages.
3.1. Critique
An enormous number of theories (see also below) have been developed between these diametrically opposing endpoints of a spectrum of theories. The present work aims at a principled call for theoretical clarity and precision of terminology. Although some examples will be mentioned, it does not represent a critique of individual, specific research.
Based on ecological psychology (44) and connecting it to DST, the terminology partly changed to “ecological dynamics” [e.g., (45–47)]. The inclusion of “dynamics” may create the impression that the theory in question is founded in DST with its deterministic explanation of system behaviour but the terms are used inconsistently. For example, Rudd et al. (48) considered the domains of environment, task, and individual and discussed the learning aspects within the perspective of the coach or teacher. The complexity of the learning process is referred to as “non-linear pedagogy” [ibid, pp. 4; cf. also (49)]. The use and combination of such terms, for example, together with “constraints” and “ecological dynamics,” may propel the idea that the theory is be grounded in DST. Wood et al. (50) considered the coach as the third domain of interest (next to environment and task). Others focused on the athlete–environment interaction within an “ecologically situated perspective” ((51), p. 18). Furthermore, the athlete–environment interaction should embed emotions in the interplay of cognitions, actions, and perceptions (52). The quoted studies illustrated the imprecise combination of terms, which may lead to individual interpretations and, potentially, misunderstandings. There is no doubt that in the above-quoted examples, the separate concepts (e.g., emotion, task, coach, and athlete) are important and exert critical influences in skill learning, but the concepts need to be differentiated, and terms should be used consistently.
Regarding psychology, Gelfand and Engelhart (53; cf. also 17, 19) pointed out a potential confusion of dynamic systems with static models. Critically, dynamic models state that the system state depends on the same or other variables at an earlier point in time. This time dependency must not be confused with “non-linearity” (53). By analogy, DST may describe similar patterns of system behaviour as seen in motor skill improvements (15), but the need to prove DST as the explanation (which requires identification of all relevant variables and exact measurements) cannot be satisfied [cf. (53, 54)].
3.2. Other frameworks
Many theories recognised that the body (next to a symbol-manipulating device) and the environment must be considered to understand human behaviour. Gibson (44) emphasised the role of environmental factors, calling the framework ecological psychology. Accordingly, the environment interacts with the athlete [e.g., (56, 57)] and must be considered.
Factors related to the body have been discussed in the embodiment framework [(57) for review]. Here, it is emphasised that cognition is not independent of the body (and the situation). That is, cognition is seen “to serve the needs of a body interacting with a real-world situation” (ibid., p. 635). Crucially, the connection between the mind and body is bi-directional. Sensorimotor representations are seen as the basis for mental simulation, which is at the core of mental training.
Similarly, the ideomotor framework proposes bi-directional links between perception and action [cf. (58, 59)]. A related theory is the perceptual–cognitive approach to voluntary movement coordination (60, 61). Interesting evidence and arguments are provided for the leading role of (rhythm) perception in executing movements. Although much work is devoted to cyclic and often bimanual actions, this theory has also been applied to skilled movements such as the tennis serve (62) and other sports (32). Mechsner (60, 61) suggests the existence of movement representations, highlighting that they are sparsely coded (no full body parameterisation) and that perception (including re-afferent body signals) has a leading role in motor control.
The environment, as well as the task, has an impact on our actions and skill learning (25, 63) [for an action-centred perspective, see (64, 65)]. The task represents the action goal, which is allocated on the psychological (symbolic) level. Importantly, the action is also embedded in the social situation. These insights have been incorporated conceptually within the idea of systems theory [e.g., (20, 66)] without a mathematical formulation as in DST. This is reasonable because systems theory emphasises synergies among (interacting) components, and from lower levels, novel functional properties can emerge at higher levels (e.g., mental states or social phenomena such as team cohesion). Since all factors (environment, person, and task) are considered in such a perspective, it might be conceived of as comprehensive and at least conceptually holistic.
3.3. Considering a wider perspective
Given the frameworks discussed above, one may consider further factors that impact motor performance. In addition to coaches providing direct input to athletes to support skill improvements (i.e., movement-specific instruction and feedback), one should consider factors that impact motor performance indirectly. Such indirect (i.e., movement-unspecific) influences may range from team building [e.g., (67)] and leadership [e.g., (68)] to coaching [mentoring; e.g., (69)] and counselling [career development; e.g., (70, 71)]. An indirect input can stabilise performance, and tools of mental control can address emotion regulation (i.e., coping) and motivational (e.g., goal setting and routine development) and volitional aspects [e.g., self-talk and imagery; cf. (32, 72)].
To understand (psychologically) the needs of an athlete, a qualitative method, that is, a phenomenological or hermeneutic approach, would be adequate [e.g., (73); see (74, 75) for reviews]. To support an athlete who is continuously evolving, the back-and-forth of exploration and understanding (i.e., hermeneutics) appears appropriate for indirect (i.e., movement-unspecific) support.
4. Conclusion
With its inherent deterministic properties, DST provides a mechanistic description of complex system behaviours without a dedicated control structure. In contrast, SPA is focussed on abstract representations and symbolic manipulations (including verbal input) in motor planning. Hence, these frameworks are incommensurable, each with their own advantages. More recent approaches do take the role of the body and the environment (both physical and social) into account, for example, embodiment, ecological psychology, and ideomotor framework. However, a combination of terminologies (of DST and SPA) may lead to confusing theoretical concepts and core assumptions (e.g., deterministic processes vs. openness to symbolic influences). A differentiation of terms, concepts, and frameworks is required for theoretical advancements. Regarding applied work, a wider perspective may include indirect support, that is, understanding the needs and the (whole) situation of the athletes. Indirect factors such as emotional support or motivational guidance are movement-unspecific but may be critical for (optimal) motor performance. Employing these factors requires a (qualitative) psychological understanding of the individual athletes and their personal situations. Thus, they may be construed as the cognitive future of motor control and learning.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Krakauer J, Hadjiosif A, Xu J, Wong A, Haith A. Motor learning. Compr Physiol. (2019) 9:613–63. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c170043
2. Luft AR, Buitrago MM. Stages of motor skill learning. Mol Neurobiol. (2005) 32:205–16. doi: 10.1385/mn:32:3:205
3. Willingham D. A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychol Rev. (1998) 105:558–84. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.3.558
4. Lohse KR, Miller MW, Bacelar M, Krigolson O. Errors, rewards, and reinforcement in motor skill learning. In: Hodges NJ, Williams AM, editors. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory & practice. London: Routledge (2019). p. 39–60.
5. Albrecht C, Hanssen-Doose A, Bös K, Schlenker L, Schmidt S, Wagner M, et al. Motorische Leistungsfähigkeit von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland [Motor performance of children and adolescents in Germany]. Sportwissenschaft. (2016) 46:294–304. doi: 10.1007/s12662-016-0421-4
6. D'Elia F, Tortella P, Sannicandro I, D'Isanto T. Design and teaching of physical education for children and youth. J Hum Sport Exerc. (2020) 15:S1527–33. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2020.15.Proc4.48
7. Marshall SJ, Biddle SJH, Gorely T, Cameron N, Murdey I. Relationships between media use, body fatness and physical activity in children and youth: a meta-analysis. Int J Obes. (2004) 28:1238–46. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802706
8. Pate RR, Davis MG, Robinson TN, Stone EJ, McKenzie TL, Young JC. Promoting physical activity in children and youth: a leadership role for schools: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation. (2006) 114:1214–24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177052
9. Krug S, Worth A, Finger JD, Damerow S, Manz K. Motorische Leistungsfähigkeit 4- bis 10-jähriger Kinder in Deutschland [Motor abilities of four to ten year old children in Germany]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. (2019) 62:1242–52. doi: 10.1007/s00103-019-03016-7
10. Tomkinson GR, Lang JJ, Tremblay MS. Temporal trends in the cardiorespiratory fitness of children and adolescents representing 19 high-income and upper middle-income countries between 1981 and 2014. Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:478–86. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097982
11. Meijer OG, Roth K. Complex movement behaviour: “the” motor–action controversy. Amsterdam: Elsevier (1988).
12. Hatze H. Motion variability—its definition, quantification, and origin. J Mot Behav. (1986) 18:5–16. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1986.10735368
13. Luenberger D. Introduction to dynamic system: theory, models, and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons (1979).
14. Kelso JAS. Dynamic patterns: the self-organisation of brain and behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press (1995).
15. Corbetta D, Vereijken B. Understanding development and learning of motor coordination in sport: the contribution of dynamic systems theory. Int J Sport Psychol. (1999) 30:507–30.
16. Schmidt R. Motor and action perspectives on motor behaviour. In: Meier OG, Roth K, editors. Complex movement behaviour: “the” motor–action controversy. Amsterdam: Elsevier (1988). p. 3–44.
17. Beer RD. Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci. (2000) 4:91–9. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01440-0
18. Walliser B. Systèmes et modèles. Introduction critique à l’analyse de systèmes [Systems and models. Critical introduction to systems analysis]. Paris, France: Le Seuil (1977).
19. Grehaigne J-F, Godbout P. Dynamic systems theory and team sport coaching. Quest. (2014) 66:96–116. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2013.814577
20. Davids K, Handfor C, Williams M. The natural physical alternative to cognitive theories of motor behaviour: an invitation for interdisciplinary research in sports science? J Sport Sci. (1994) 12:495–528. doi: 10.1080/02640419408732202
21. Seidler R. Multiple motor learning experiences enhance motor adaptability. J Cogn Neurosci. (2004) 16:65–73. doi: 10.1162/089892904322755566
22. Schöllhorn W, Bauer H. Identifying individual movement styles in high performance sports by means of self-organizing Kohonen maps. In: Riehle H, Vieten M, editors. Proceedings of the 16 International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sport. Konstanz: Konstanz University Press (1998). p. 574–7.
23. Schöllhorn W, Beckmann H, Janssen D, Michelbrink M. Differenzielles Lehren und Lernen im Sport [Differential teaching and learning in sport]. Sportunterricht. (2009) 58:36–40.
24. Kißmann M, Beckmann H, Michelbrink M. Reflexionen über den Einsatz des differenziellen Lehrens und Lernens im Sportunterricht [Reflections on the use of differential teaching and learning in school sport]. Sportunterricht. (2009) 58:51–4.
25. Newell K. Motor skill acquisition. Annu Rev Psychol. (1991) 42:213–37. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.001241
27. Pulvermüller F. The syntax of action. Trends Cogn Sci. (2014) 18:219–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.001
28. Moro A. Response to Pulvermüller: the syntax of actions and other metaphors. Trends Cogn Sci. (2014) 18:221. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.012
29. Mechsner F, Kerzel D, Knoblich G, Prinz W. Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature. (2001) 414:69–73. doi: 10.1038/35102060
30. Feltz DL, Landers DM. The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: a meta-analysis. J Sports Psychol. (1983) 5:25–57. doi: 10.1123/jsp.5.1.25
31. Munzert J, Lorey B, Zentgraf K. Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Res Rev. (2009) 60:306–26. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.024
32. Schack T, Essig K, Frank C, Koester D. Mental representation and motor imagery training. Front Hum Neurosci. (2014) 8:328. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00328
34. Beer RD. A dynamical systems perspective on agent–environment interaction. Artif Intell. (1995) 72:173–215. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00005-L
35. Anderson JR. Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychol Rev. (1978) 85:249–77. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.4.249
36. Paivio A. Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press (1986).
37. Rosenbaum D. The Cinderella of psychology: the neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behavior. Am Psychol. (2005) 60(4):308–17. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.4.308
39. Kay BA. The dimensionality of movement trajectories and the degrees of freedom problem: a tutorial. Hum Mov Sci. (1988) 7:343–64. doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(88)90016-4
40. Rosenbaum D, Meulenbroek RG, Vaughan J. Three approaches to the degrees of freedom problem in reaching. In: Wing A, Haggard P, Flanagan JR, editors. Hand and brain. San Diego: Academic Press (1996). p. 169–85. doi: 10.1016/B978-012759440-8/50013-X
41. Schack T, Ritter H. Representation and learning in motor action—bridges between experimental research and cognitive robotics. New Ideas Psychol. (2013) 31:258–69. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.04.003
43. Lincoln Y. “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qual Inq. (2010) 16:3–9. doi: 10.1177/1077800409349754
45. Araújo D, Davids K, Hristovski R. The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2006) 7:653–76. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.002
46. Woods C, McKeown I, Rothwell M, Araújo D, Robertson S. Sport practitioners as sport ecology designers: how ecological dynamics has progressively changed perceptions of skill “acquisition” in the sporting habitat. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:654. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00654
47. Davids K, Glazier P, Araújo D, Bartlett R. Movement systems as dynamical systems: the functional role of variability and its implications for sports medicine. Sports Med. (2003) 33:245–60. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45901-1_3
48. Rudd J, Pesce C, Strafford B, Davids K. Physical literacy—a journey of individual enrichment: an ecological dynamics rationale for enhancing performance and physical activity in all. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:1904. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01904
49. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: an introduction. New York: Routledge (2022). doi: 10.4324/9781003247456
50. Wood M, Mellalieu S, Araújo D, Woods C, Davids K. Learning to coach: an ecological dynamics perspective. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2023) 18:609–20. doi: 10.1177/17479541221138680
51. Rothwell M, Stone J, Davids K. Exploring niche construction in sport coaching: an ecological dynamics analysis. Sports Coaching Rev. (2021) 12:209–31. doi: 10.1080/21640629.2021.1974692
52. Araújo D, Davids K, Renshaw I. Cognition, emotion and action in sport: an ecological dynamics perspective. In: Tenenbaum G, Eklund R, editors. Handbook of sport psychology. I. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons (2020). p. 535–55.
53. Gelfand LA, Engelhart S. Dynamical systems theory in psychology: assistance for the lay reader is required. Front Psychol. (2012) 3:382. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00382
54. Balagué N, Torrents C, Hristovski R, Kelso J. Sport science integration: an evolutionary synthesis. Eur J Sport Sci. (2016) 17:51–62. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1198422
55. Handford C, Davids K, Bennett S, Button C. Skill acquisition in sport: some applications of an evolving practice ecology. J Sport Sci. (1997) 15:621–40. doi: 10.1080/026404197367056
56. Woods C, McKeown I, O’Sullivan M, Robertson S, Davids K. Theory to practice: performance preparation models in contemporary high-level sport guided by an ecological dynamics framework. Sports Med Open. (2020) 6:36. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00268-5
57. Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev. (2002) 9:625–36. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
58. Moeller B, Pfister R. Ideomotor learning: time to generalize a longstanding principle. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2022) 140:104782. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104782
59. Shin YK, Proctor RW, Capaldi EJ. A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychol Bull. (2010) 136:943–74. doi: 10.1037/a0020541
60. Mechsner F. A psychological approach to human voluntary movements. J Mot Behav. (2004) 36:355–70. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2004.11007993
61. Mechsner F. Response to commentaries: actions as perceptual–conceptual “Gestalts”. J Mot Behav. (2004) 36:408–17. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.4.408-417
62. Schack T, Mechsner F. Representation of motor skills in human long-term memory. Neurosci Lett. (2006) 391:77–81. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.10.009
63. Newell K. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade M, Whiting H, editors. Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff (1986). p. 341–60.
64. Nitsch J, Hackfort D. Stress in Schule und Hochschule: Eine handlungspsychologische Funktionsanalyse [Stress in school and university: an action–psychological function analysis]. In: Nitsch J, editor. Stress. Stuttgart: Huber (1981). p. 263–311.
65. Hackfort D, Nitsch J. Action and action situation. In: Hackfort D, Schinke R, Strauss B, editors. Dictionary of sport psychology. London: Elsevier (2019). p. 2–3.
66. Nitsch J. Handlungstheoretische Grundlagen der Sportpsychologie [Action–theoretical fundamentals of sport psychology]. In: Nitsch J, Singer R, editors. Einführung in die Sportpsychologie, Teil 1 [Introduction into sport psychology, part 1]. Schorndorf: Hofmann (2001). p. 43–164.
67. Evans MB, Eys M, Bruner M, Kleinert J. Building cohesive groups. In: Papaioannou A, Hackfort D, editors. Fundamental concepts in sport and exercise psychology. International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). London: Routledge (2014). p. 513–28.
68. Morton K, Sylvester B, Wilson J, Lonsdale C, Beauchamp M. Tranformational leadership. In: Papaioannou A, Hackfort D, editors. Fundamental concepts in sport and exercise psychology. International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). London: Routledge (2014). p. 571–87.
69. Stambulova N, Wylleman P. Athletes’ career development and transitions. In: Papaioannou A, Hackfort D, editors. Fundamental concepts in sport and exercise psychology. International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). London: Routledge (2014). p. 605–20.
70. Lorimer R, Jowett S. Coaches. In: Papaioannou A, Hackfort D, editors. Fundamental concepts in sport and exercise psychology. International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). London: Routledge (2014). p. 171–86.
71. Hardcastle S, Taylor A. Counselling to promote physical activity. In: Papaioannou A, Hackfort D, editors. Fundamental concepts in sport and exercise psychology. International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). London: Routledge (2014). p. 785–800.
72. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychn Bull Rev. (2016) 23:1382–414. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
73. Sandage S, Cook K, Hill P, Stawn B. Hermeneutics and psychology: a review and dialectical model. Rev Gen Psychol. (2008) 12:344–64. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.12.4.344
Keywords: motor learning, skills, motivation, emotion, representation, coaching
Citation: Koester D (2023) The (cognitive) future of motor control and learning. Front. Sports Act. Living 5:1181808. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1181808
Received: 7 March 2023; Accepted: 18 August 2023;
Published: 13 September 2023.
Edited by:
Christian Thue Bjørndal, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, NorwayReviewed by:
Jamie Taylor, Dublin City University, IrelandArve Vorland Pedersen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Karen Emilia Ekman, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway, in collaboration with reviewer AVP
© 2023 Koester. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dirk Koester dirk.koester@businessschool-berlin.de