RESEARCH PAPER
Cyclic movement execution and its influence on motor programmess
 
More details
Hide details
1
Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland
2
Department of Movement Physiology, Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
3
Institute of Psychology, University of Gdańsk, Poland
 
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to discover the relationship between the performance of different mechanical movements of rowers, and define its effect on the motor programs of the cyclic movement in athletes living in rural and urban areas.

Material and methods:
Twenty-two male rowers participated in the experiment using a rowing ergometer (Concept2, USA). The experiment consisted of 3 tests examining the maximal power of the pull-ups (MPbpu). The movement mechanogram was registered with a specialized complex Noraxon’s 3D MyoMotion (Noraxon Inc., USA). The software of the complex allowed calculation of the values of the joint angles from the accelerometer data. The Origin Lab 8.5 program was used for the mathematical and statistical processing of the signals from the mechanograms.

Results:
It was found that all experiment participants had a stepped controlled increase in the power of single bar pull-ups leading to a corresponding proportional increase in the frequency of rowing – test 1 and, conversely, a stepped controlled increase in the rowing frequency accompanied by a proportional increase in the power of the bar pull-ups – test 2. The involuntary dependence of the power and the rate was due to the peculiarities of the central cyclic movement programming, according to which the forces and durations of the active and passive bar pull-ups phases were interconnected and regulated together. The voluntary power-rate dependence control led to the breakdown of these links in the motor program of cyclic movements and to the separate control of these parameters.

Conclusions:
Motor programs in cyclic movement may be created in the same pattern in tope level sport and recreation, as well in different environmental conditions – gym halls (movement simulators), professional and recreational water sport tracks.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Marcin Dornowski   
Department of Sport, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, ul. Kazimierza Górskiego 1, 80-335 Gdansk, Poland
 
REFERENCES (20):
1. Guével A, Boyas S, Guihard V, Cornu C, Hug F, Nordez A. Thigh muscle activities in elite rowers during on-water rowing. Inter J Sports Med. 2001; 32(02): 109–116.
2. Hofmijster MJ, Van Soest A J, De Koning JJ. Gross efficiency during rowing is not affected by stroke rate. Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2009; 41: 1088–95.
3. Di Prampero PE, Cortili G, Celentano F, Cerretelli P. Physiological aspects of rowing. J Appl Physiol. 1971; 31(6): 853--857.
4. Kleshnev V. Comparison of on-water rowing with its simulation on Concept 2 and RowPerfect machines. Proceedings of XXIII international symposium on biomechanics in sports. 2005; pp. 130–133.
5. Steer RR, McGregor AH, Bull AMJ. A comparison of kinematics and performance measures of two rowing ergometers. J Sport Sci Med. 2006; 5(1): 52.
6. Hofmijster MJ, Landman EHJ, Smith RM, Van Soest AJK. Effect of bar stroke rate on the distribution of net mechanical power in rowing. J Sports Sci. 2007; 25: 403–11.
7. Cerne T, Kamnik R, Vesnicer B, ЕЅganecGros J, Munih M. Differences between elite, junior and non-rowers in kinematic and kinetic parameters during ergometer rowing. Hum Mov Sci. 2013; 32(4): 691–707.
8. Tomiak T, Gorkovenko AV, Mishchenko VS, Korol A, Bulinski P, Vereschaka IV, Tal’nov AN, Vasilenko DA. Control of the Power of Stroke and Muscle Activities in Cyclic Rowing Movements (a Research using Rowing Simulators). Neurophysiol. 2016; 48(4): 1–15.
9. McCrimmon CM, Wang PT, Heydari P, Nguyen A, Shaw SJ, Gong H, Chui LA, Liu CY, Nenadic Z, Do AH. Electrocorticographic Encoding of Human Gaitinthe Leg Primary Motor Cortex. Cerebralcortex. 2017; 1–11.
10. Rabin E, Shi P, Werner W. Gait parameter control timing with dynamic manual contact or visual cues. J Neurophysiol. 2016; 115: 2880–92.
11. Choi JT, Bastian AJ. Adaptation reveals independent control networks for human walking. Nature Neurosci. 2017; 10: 1055–62.
12. McNeely ME, Earhart GM. Evidence for limb-independent control of locomotor trajectory. Experimental Brain Res. 2010; 201: 613–8.
13. Martens J, Figueiredo P, Daly D. Electromyography in the four competitive swimming stroke: a systematic review. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology. 2015; 25: 273–91.
14. Martens J, Daly D, Deschamps K, Fernandes RJP, Staes F. Intra-Individual Variability of Surface Electromyography in Front Crawl Swimming. PloS one. 2015; 10: e0144998.
15. van Houwelingen J, Roerdink M, Huibers AV, Evers LLW, Beek PJ. Pacing the phasing of leg and arm movements in breaststroke swimming to minimize intra-cyclic velocity fluctuations. PloS one. 2017; 12: e0186160.
16. Szopa J, Mleczko E, Żak S. Podstawy antropomotoryki. Warszawa – Kraków, PWN, 2000.
17. Gawda P, Ginszt M, Ginsz A, Pawlak H, Majcher P. Differences in myoelectric manifestations of fatigue during isometric muscle actions. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2018; 25(2): 296–299.
18. Tomczak A, Dąbrowski J, Mikulski T. Psychomotor performance of Polish Air Force cadets after 36 hours of survival training. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2017; 24(3): 387–391.
19. Pąchalska M, MacQueen BD, Cielebąk K. Creative potential of microgenetic theory. Acta Neuropsychol. 2018; 16(2): 125–155.
20. Gotner K, Gotner R, Pedrycz-Wieczorska A, Wilczyńska D, Jastrzębowska G, Dornowski M. Hyperbaric therapy influence on psychomotor abilities effectiveness development – two cases study. Acta Neuropsychol. 2018; 16(2): 213–219.
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966