4.2 Article

Locomotor behaviour of children while navigating through apertures

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 210, Issue 2, Pages 185-194

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2614-2

Keywords

Action capabilities; Locomotion; Obstacle avoidance; Children

Categories

Funding

  1. School of Social Sciences and Law at Oxford Brookes University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During everyday locomotion, we encounter a range of obstacles requiring specific motor responses; a narrow aperture which forces us to rotate our shoulders in order to pass through is one example. In adults, the decision to rotate their shoulders is body scaled (Warren and Whang in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:371-383, 1987), and the movement through is temporally and spatially tailored to the aperture size (Higuchi et al. in Exp Brain Res 175:50-59, 2006; Wilmut and Barnett in Hum Mov Sci 29:289-298, 2010). The aim of the current study was to determine how 8-to 10-year-old children make action judgements and movement adaptations while passing through a series of five aperture sizes which were scaled to body size (0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 times shoulder width). Spatial and temporal characteristics of movement speed and shoulder rotation were collected over the initial approach phase and while crossing the doorway threshold. In terms of making action judgements, results suggest that the decision to rotate the shoulders is not scaled in the same way as adults, with children showing a critical ratio of 1.61. Shoulder angle at the door could be predicted, for larger aperture ratios, by both shoulder angle variability and lateral trunk variability. This finding supports the dynamical scaling model (Snapp-Childs and Bingham in Exp Brain Res 198:527-533, 2009). In terms of movement adaptations, we have shown that children, like adults, spatially and temporally tailor their movements to aperture size.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available