=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0090
|storemode=property
|title=Analysis of the Relation between M-Capacity Development, Expertise and Motor Learning in Young Volleyball Players
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0090.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/BisagnoM15
}}
==Analysis of the Relation between M-Capacity Development, Expertise and Motor Learning in Young Volleyball Players==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0090.pdf
Analysis of the Relation between M-Capacity Development, Expertise and Motor
Learning in Young Volleyball Players
Elisa Bisagno (elisa.bisagno@libero.it)
Psychology graduate, University of Genoa, Disfor, C.so Podestà 2, 16128 Genova
Sergio Morra (morra.nous@unige.it)
University of Genoa, Disfor, C.so Podestà 2, 16128 Genova
Abstract Constructive Operators) of Pascual-Leone (1987; Pascual-
The main purpose of the study was to examine whether M Leone & Goodman, 1979), which includes two levels of
Capacity, as it is defined in Pascual-Leone’s Theory of constructs: (a) subjective operators or schemes, units of
Constructive Operators as the maximum number of schemes analysis of cognitive processes, and (b) metasubjective
which can be simultaneously activated by attentional operators, general resources of the mind without a specific
resources, is predictive of motor learning – in this case, of the
acquisition and development of the “third touch” in
content, but operating in processing information. The
volleyball. This hypothesis, supported by some preliminary outcome of a cognitive process depends on both the
observations on a small sample of young volleyball players activated schemes and how the metasubjective operators
(Bisagno & Morra, 2013), was investigated through a study influence them. Historically, the TCO grows out of a
with the participation of 120 volleyball players, aged between comparison between Piaget's theory of development and
6 and 26 years, engaged both in working memory tests and Witkin’s studies on cognitive style (e.g., Witkin et al.,
practical tests of volleyball. Furthermore, each athlete
1974). Pascual-Leone (1970, 1987) claims that several tasks,
reported on his expertise, in terms of years of practice and
number of trainings per week. The results pointed to a very including the Piagetian ones (for example, the conservation
clear dissociation: while M Capacity represents the best tasks), require to keep in mind and work on a number of
predictor of correct motor performance, experience was the “schemes” (information units) that may exceed the capacity
key for the precision of the athletic skills. of a child who has not yet reached a sufficient maturation of
attention and working memory. Instead of an increasing
Keywords: motor learning; M-Capacity development;
logical competence (as claimed by Piaget), according to
expertise; volleyball
Pascual-Leone, cognitive development depends on the
child’s ability to coordinate an increasing number of mental
Introduction
schemes; this number is called M Capacity – where “M”
It is well established that sport and cognitive activity are stands for “Mental energy”. The M-Operator is a
highly interconnected. Ellemberg & Deschês (2010) metasubjective operator that increments the activation of the
compared the effect on cognitive performance of 30 minutes schemes relevant to a task; in this sense, it is an attentional
of aerobic exercise to the same time spent in watching resource, whose capacity is expressed as the maximum
television, finding that even a single session of aerobic is number of schemes that can be activated at the same time.
able to produce a significant, though not permanent, Pascual-Leone (1987) suggests a possible
improvement in cognitive performance. Similar results were neuropsychological base for the M-Operator in the frontal
reported by Pesce et al. (2009) and Davranche, Hall & and prefrontal lobes: the attentional resources would be used
McMorris (2009). Also Diamond (2000) underlined the link to activate the schemes, localized in different cortical areas.
between cognitive and motor development since, when the Due to maturation, M Capacity develops during childhood
first is affected (for example, because of a and adolescence: according to the theory, at the age of 5-6 a
neurodegenerative disorder), also the second is. All these typical child can coordinate 2 schemes, and this number
and many other studies point to a strong connection between increases by one unit every second year, until about 15 years
sport and cognitive development, but often they study how of age. At that point, the individual is able, on average, to
physical activity affects our cognitive processes, not the coordinate up to seven schemes – Miller’s (1956) famous
opposite. The aim of this study, instead, was to understand if magical number. Pascual-Leone’s TCO was mainly
and how ability in sports –volleyball in particular– is supported by studies on perceptual-attentional tasks, such as
affected by cognitive abilities, such as working memory. the Compound Stimuli Visual Information task (Pascual-
The framework for this study is the TCO (Theory of Leone, 1970), and reasoning tasks, such as the “horizontality
548
of water level” problem (Pascual-Leone & Morra, 1991). Motor Learning Measurement
Only rarely was motor learning studied in this framework; The first challenge in this study was finding a way to
in this field, the most important experiments were carried measure each athlete’s “level” of motor learning; this was
out by Todor (1975, 1977, 1979; see also Pascual-Leone, not an easy task, because volleyball is an open sport
1987). In Todor’s Rho Task, participants were asked to (Nicoletti & Borghi, 2008), in which success is determined
perform as quickly as possible a simple action, made of two not only by the ability to reproduce a set of movements, but
basic movements, one circular and one linear: combined, also by adaptability to the changing conditions of the game.
they describe a figure that is similar to the Greek letter ρ However, in order to “purge” (as much as possible) the
(“rho”), from which the name of the task. However, the Rho measure from the many uncontrollable variables that would
Task involves a very simple movement, hardly comparable have been involved if we used an actual game action, we
to the complexity of real-life motor tasks. Also based on the decided to evaluate only a single technical gesture, the so-
encouraging results of a preliminary observational research called “third touch” (or “attack”), the one with which the
(Bisagno & Morra, 2013), this study aimed to testing player pushes the ball into the opponent’s court. Probably,
Pascual-Leone’s theory in the field of motor learning and in this gesture is also the one that undergoes the largest
the context of a structured sport, volleyball. In particular, we changes during the years, thanks to the physical growth and
investigated whether M Capacity is a prerequisite of improved technique of an athlete.
learning specific technical gestures. Six attack tasks of increasing difficulty were defined. In
each task, the player was required to perform a specified
action, in order to get the ball in a certain part of the field –
Materials, Method and Hypotheses area 2 (4 meters away) for children up to 10 years old, or
area 1 (7 meters) for athletes older than 11 years – and, if
Participants and the general research design they could, to score a direct hit in the middle of a hula-hoop
The study began in December 2013, contacting volleyball ring, located in the same area. The six task levels were:
teams for participation and collecting the informed consent 1. “Basic” task - just throwing the ball with the two hands
from each athlete; it involved 120 young volleyball players, towards the hula-hop target placed at a distance of 4 meters,
15 males and 105 females, from five different clubs. The with no hedges between it and the athlete. This task was
participants were divided into six age groups of equal size, performed only by the subjects in the 5-8 years range, as a
which made it possible to observe a wide range of levels of control task in comparison with the subsequent one: it was
M Capacity development as theorized by Pascual-Leone. expected that all children easily succeeded (and, in fact, they
There were 20 participants in each age group: 5-8 years, did). Therefore, it has not been taken into account in the
9-10, 11-12, 13-14, 15-17, as well as a group of adult calculation of the total correct executions.
athletes, 18-26 years old and with at least 10 years of 2. Tossing the ball over the net – the task is exactly the
volleyball experience. This broad age range brings about a same as the previous one, but the participant had to roll over
large variability of both M Capacity and volleyball the net.
experience. Consequently, it was possible to measure both 3. Set with feet on the ground – the ball was thrown, by a
variables and test their effects; based on studies, like that of partner or by the coach, to the player and she had to push it
Chi et al. (1978) with young chess players, one can suggest with a setting, without approach, towards the area of the
that expertise is a key factor in determining the outcome of a field indicated by the hula-hoop.
specific athletic gesture. Therefore, it is important to 4. Set attack with approach – the gesture is the same as
distinguish the effects of M capacity and experience. the previous one, but preceded by a run-up.
To avoid possible biases caused by the small size of the 5. Spike, with a run-up.
male sample (nM = 15; nF = 105) and its unequal distribution 6. Spike against the block – this task is exactly the same
within the various groups of age, analyses were performed as the previous one, but with the presence of an opponent
twice, i.e., on the full sample and only on the female performing the block.
subsample. For brevity, only the analyses on female The trials, all video-recorded, were performed during the
participants are reported below. The pattern of results in the regular hours of training (after about 20 minutes of warm-up
whole sample, however, was nearly identical. The actual and some basic exercises with the ball, at the discretion of
size of the age groups of females, on which the analyses the coaches). For each task, each athlete performed five
reported below were carried out, varies from 15 to 20. trials (items); a task level was considered passed with a
This study involved collecting two major types of data: minimum of 3 out of 5 correct executions. In case of 2 hits
measures of the participants’ motor skills and of their M or less, the test was discontinued without the athlete passing
Capacity. In addition, we considered the players’ age, their to the next task levels. Performance on each task was scored
years of volleyball experience and their number of training in two ways:
sessions per week during the current year. (a) correct execution of the gestures, i.e., the number of
items on which the athlete performed the required actions
549
reaching the target area of the field; to demand attentional resources from the individual. The M-
(b) precision, i.e., the number of perfect hits in the hula- demand of the spike gesture is 6 schemes: “direction on the
hoop ring. horizontal plane”, “throwing depth”, “monitoring of the
airborne phase of the ball”, “run-up control”, the “attack
M Capacity Measurement timing” (in this case as the need to hit the ball just above the
M-Capacity was measured in an individual session of net tape), and finally, control of the “closing movement of
about 80 minutes. Four tests were administered to each the wrist”, needed to confer to the ball the spike’s
athlete, in order to average performance in different characteristic downward trajectory. Finally, it seems
domains. Two of these tests involve visual-spatial materials, plausible to assume that the presence of the block, in the
the Mr Cucumber test (De Avila, Havassy & Pascual-Leone, sixth and final task, adds an extra load of one unit of
1976) and the Figural Intersection Test (Pascual-Leone & information to represent the obstacle that must be avoided.
Baillargeon, 1994), while the other two use verbal materials,
the Backward Digit Span Test and the Direction Following Table 1: Regression analysis – Dependent variable: Total
Task (Pascual-Leone & Johnson, 2011). Only some of these number of correct executions (Volley_tot) – R2 = .74
tests had already been validated as M capacity measures also
in samples older than 11 (e.g., see Morra, 1994; Predictors β p
PascualLeone & Johnson, 2011). Preliminary analyses M Capacity .55 <.001
showed that, in the age groups from 13 years to adulthood, Volley Years .30 <.001
the Backward Digit Span (while correlating with the other Weekly Training .15 .012
measures) had a lower mean, thus underestimating the
subjects’ capacity. Therefore, the M Capacity measure was Table 2: Regression analysis – Dependent variable:
finally defined as the average of the other three tests. Volleyball level (Volley_lev) – R2 = .64
Task Analysis of the Motor Task Predictors β p
To identify the tasks’ difficulty according to the TCO, and M Capacity .54 <.001
in particular to model the demand they place on M Capacity, Volley Years .22 .009
a task analysis was performed. Guided by the theory and by Weekly Training .17 .014
a theoretical interpretation of the observations gathered by
Bisagno and Morra (2013), we aimed to identify the
requirements for correct execution of each task – in this Data Analysis and Results
case, the number of schemes that need to be activated with Four dependent variables were considered in the following
attentional resources (M capacity). analyses; two of them were related to correct execution of
According to our task analysis, the basic task should volleyball trials, and other two were related to the precision
require an M Capacity of 2, corresponding to the schemes of actions – i.e., to the amount of perfect hits in the hula-
“target distance” and “target direction on the horizontal hoop ring. In particular, we calculated:
plane” for the throwing. To these schemes a third one is (a) The total number of correct executions, which is simply
added, the “vertical push”, for the task of tossing the ball given by the sum of all the trials properly accomplished by
over the net. Assuming that, with experience, distance and the athlete in all task levels except the basic task (max
vertical push are combined and chunked into a single possible score = 25).
representation, the number of schemes necessary to succeed (b) The “volleyball level”, defined as the highest level at
in the third task (set with feet on the ground), should be 4: which the participant performed correctly on at least three
“direction on the horizontal plane”, “passing over the net”, trials (max possible score = 6).
the “body and hands positioning” to embrace properly the (c) The total precision, which consists simply of the number
ball without committing foul, and the “clearance timing” – of perfect hits in the hula-hop in all task levels except the
which involves coordinating one’s movements with the basic task (max possible score = 25).
ball’s parable. As regards the set attack with run-up, the (d) The “corrected precision”, defined as the sum of the
schemes involved should be 5: “direction on the horizontal regression residuals, for all task levels performed by the
plane”, the “passing over the net” scheme, “monitoring the athlete, of the number of perfect hits on the number of
airborne phase of the ball” (which is necessary to choose the correct trials; this variable was constructed as a measure of
time for jumping), “run-up control” (a single pattern, motor precision that controls for simple correct execution.
because this movement should already have been well The following variables were considered as predictors:
practiced and automated without the ball), and the “attack - M Capacity, defined as the average of the scores in three
timing” in harmony with the ball’s downward trajectory. Set tests: the Mr. Cucumber Test, the Figural Intersections Test,
as a gesture, technically, should already be fully acquired at and the Direction Following Task;
this point, and therefore is considered automated enough not
550
Table 3: Contingency table between Volleyball level and M Capacity
M-capacity 3 4 5 6 7 8 total
0 0 1 0 3 1 5
spike against the block
(0.86) (0.52) (1.14) (1.00)
0 0 2 11 9 9 31
spike
(5.31) (3.25) (7.09)
1 5 17 10 8 1 42
set with run-up
(7.20)
11 4 2 0 0 0 17
set (feet on the ground)
5 2 2 0 0 0 9
toss
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
basic task
total 18 11 24 21 20 11 105
- two measures of experience, that is, the number of years Capacity than the participant has. The test compares the
playing volleyball (indicated as Volley Years in the tables), observed frequencies in these cells with those expected by
and the current number of training sessions per week chance (expected frequencies, reported in parentheses for
(Weekly Training); the critical cells in Table 3). Hildebrand et al.’s (1977) index
As one can note in Table 1, the best predictor of the total “Del” expresses the extent to which the prediction that one
number of correct executions was M-Capacity (ß = .55), or more cells have null frequency explains the difference
followed by the years of volleyball (ß = .30) and the training between observed and expected frequencies in the critical
sessions per week (ß = .15). To assess whether any other cells. A positive value of Del indicates that the observed
age-related variable accounts for an additional portion of frequencies in the critical cells are lower than expected by
variance, we subsequently entered age in the analysis, but it chance; its maximum value is 1, when all the critical cells
did not account for significant variance in addition to that are empty. A z value and a confidence interval can be
already explained by the three main predictors. This result is calculated for Del. If the confidence interval only includes
consistent with our hypothesis that an adequate M Capacity positive values, then the prediction is better than chance; if
is required to learn motor skills in volleyball. Similar results the interval, besides being positive, also includes Del = 1,
were found analysing the volleyball level (see Table 2); also then one accept the hypothesis that the frequencies in the
in this case, M Capacity was the first predictor (ß = .54), predicted cells are not different from zero.
followed by the years of practice (ß = .22) and training per In our first attempt, based on the hypotheses derived from
week (ß = .17). The prominent role of M Capacity as a our original task analysis, the model was supported only in
predictor of acquisition of volleyball skills is the main part; this led us to a slight revision of the initial model that,
finding in this study. for the sake of brevity, is the only one presented in this
Furthermore, we tried to infer whether there is a minimum paper (see the critical cells, for which the frequencies
(threshold) prerequisite M Capacity, below which a given expected by chance indicated in parentheses in Table 3). In
technical gesture cannot be accomplished. To do so, we the final discussion, we explain in detail which aspects in
classified participants according to the “volleyball level” the task analysis we modified after revising our predictions.
they reached, and to their M-Capacity, approximated to the As one can observe in Table 3:
nearest integer (3 to 8). The contingency table (Table 3) Total observed frequencies in the critical cells = 4
reports the observed frequency of participants with a certain Total expected frequencies in the critical cells = 26.37,
M Capacity who passed each level. A statistical test, called from which the following statistics were computed:
Prediction Analyses of Cross-Classification (Hildebrand, Del = .848 (S.E. = .074)
Laing, & Rosenthal, 1977), was performed on these data; z = 11.40, p <.001
our initial theoretical prediction stated that all frequencies 99% C.I. = (.656, 1.040)
should be zero for the volleyball levels that (according to Because the confidence interval includes Del = 1 (and
our task analysis presented above) require a larger M does not include Del = 0), this revised prediction can be
551
considered accurate. of certain motor patterns, thus reducing the M-demand for a
Whereas the results for correct performance clearly pointed given motor task. On the other hand, a larger M Capacity
to a major role of M capacity in learning the actions could facilitate faster acquisition of a technical movement.
involved in the “third touch”, very different results emerged The more specific predictions of our initial task analysis,
for the motor precision of these actions. however, were only partly confirmed – that is, with two
exceptions. Specifically, we found that the set from
Table 4: Regression analysis – Dependent variable: Total standstill (which, according to our task analysis, should have
number of perfect hits (Hits_tot) – R2 = .20 requested a M Capacity of at least 4 units) was performed by
athletes with an M Capacity of about 3. Similarly, the set
Predictors β p with run-up would seem to require fewer attentional
Volley Years .45 <.001 resources than we hypothesized (4 activated schemes instead
Weekly Training (excluded variable) of 5). These findings provide suggestions for refining our
M_Capacity (excluded variable) analyses as follows.
The schemes we assumed as necessary for execution of
Table 5: Regression analysis – Dependent variable: the set from standstill were “direction on the horizontal
Corrected precision (Accuracy) – R2 = .06 plane”, “passing over the net”, “body and hands
positioning”, and the “clearance timing”. Those for the set
Predictors β p with run-up were “direction on the horizontal plane”,
Volley Years .25 .010 “passing over the net”, “monitoring the airborne phase of
Weekly Training (excluded variable) the ball”, “run-up control”, and the “attack timing”. To
M_Capacity (excluded variable) discover where the flaw in our model was, we returned to
the video recordings. One possibility is that the “body and
hands positioning”, in the set gesture, does not represent a
The results of a regression analysis with the total number of
load for M Capacity. Another possibility is that the throwing
perfect hits as dependent variable are reported in Table 4,
direction and the passing over the net actually are a single
and those for corrected precision are reported in Table 5.
representation. These hypotheses might explain the results,
The variance accounted for in these analyses was much less
and warrant further investigation. Our task analysis of the
than for correct performance variables (R2= .20 for total
spike, instead, seems to be already accurate. The six
precision and R2= .06 for corrected precision). In both cases,
hypothesized schemes were “direction on the horizontal
the years of volleyball experience were the only significant
plane”, “throwing depth”, “monitoring of the airborne phase
predictor. Not surprisingly, in the precision of gesture there
of the ball”, “run-up control”, the “attack timing”, and the
was a major difference between the experienced adult
“closing movement of the wrist”.
athletes and the others: of the overall 164 perfect hits, 56
Further observation of the athletes engaged in the task,
were attained by this group.
and of their main errors, confirmed that the “monitoring the
airborne phase of the ball” and the “attack timing” are
actually different schemes. The errors related to this skill, in
Conclusions
fact, seem to be of two types: some athletes started the run
General findings up in the wrong moment, others delayed too much the
In general, it is possible to say that the results of the study “stroke” with the arm.
are consistent with our main hypotheses: M Capacity This study could be continued, for instance replicating it
actually proved to be the best predictor of motor learning in with a larger number of male athletes. More important, this
executing correctly the third touch in volleyball, whereas model could be extended to other sports, including open-
experience is the key predictor of precision of the athletic skills, like volleyball, but also closed-skills sports and motor
gesture. activities, such as gymnastics or dance.
This clear dissociation between measures of correctness Further research may also consider a broader range of
and precision seems to clarify the existence of different predictors of sports performance, including for instance
processes in motor learning. In the “cognitive phase”, when executive functions, cognitive styles and emotional
a gesture is learned in the first place (Nicoletti & Borghi, regulation.
2007), M Capacity is fundamental; however, when the
overall task is learned and sufficiently mastered, experience Practical implications
enables technical refinement, essential to perform with Identifying in the TCO a good framework for the
consistency and precision the same task over and over again, theoretical modelling of motor learning processes can be
and achieve a higher degree of expertise. These two useful not only for the research, but also for practical
different mechanisms could also influence each other; for applications. In fact, knowing the M-demand of each single
example, experience can lead to automation (and chunking) technical gesture would allow improving the training
552
curricula for young athletes and, through a separate Nicoletti, R. & Borghi, A.M. (2007). Il controllo motorio.
automatization of some schemes involved in the Bologna: Il Mulino;
movements, could facilitate a faster learning of complex Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the
tasks. transitional rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta
Besides the creation of customized curricula, a task Psychologica, 63, 301-345;
analysis of the movements could be the grounds for Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic processes for neo-
important improvements in the training techniques for those Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal account of
“late” athletes who start playing sports after 7-8 years of age cognitive development. International Journal of
and, therefore, must learn complex athletic gestures quickly. Psychology, 22, 531-570;
Also on the practical side, the benefits that coaching could Pascual-Leone, J., & Goodman, D. (1979). Intelligence and
have from this line of studies are therefore manifold, and experience: A neo-Piagetian approach. Instructional
worth of being explored. Science, 8, 301-367;
Pascual-Leone, J., & Johnson, J. (2011). A developmental
References theory of mental attention. In P. Barrouillet & V. Gaillard
Bisagno, E. & Morra, S. (2013). Analisi evolutiva dei (Eds.), Cognitive development and working memory:
processi attentivi in giovani giocatori di pallavolo. From neo- Piagetian to cognitive approaches. New York:
Giornale Italiano di Psicologia dello Sport, 17, 1-9; Psychology Press;
Chi, M.T.H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory Pascual-Leone, J., & Morra, S. (1991). Horizontality of
development. In R. S. Siegler, (Ed.), Children’s thinking: water level: A neo-Piagetian developmental review. In H.
What develops?. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and
Associates; behaviour. Orlando, FL: Academic Press;
Davranche, K., Hall, B. & McMorris, T. (2009). Effect of Pesce, C., Crova, C., Cereatti, L., Casella, R. & Bellucci, M.
acute exercise on cognitive control required during an (2009). Physical activity and mental performance in
Eriksen flanker task. Journal of Sport and Exercise preadolescents: Effects of acute exercise on free-recall
Psychology, 31, 628-639; memory. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 2, 16-22;
Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor Todor, J. I. (1975). Age differences in integration of
development and cognitive development, and of the components of a motor task. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development, 71, 41, 211-215;
44-56; Todor, J. I. (1977). Cognitive development, cognitive style,
Ellemberg D. & St-Louis-Deschênes M. (2010). The effect and motor ability. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Human performance
of acute physical exercise on cognitive function during and behaviour: Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Psycho-
development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 122- Motor Learning and Sports Symposium. Banff, Alberta,
126; Canada;
Hildebrand, D.K., Laing, J.D. & Rosenthal, H. (1977). Todor, J. I. (1979). Developmental differences in motor task
Prediction analysis of cross classifications, New York: integration: A test of Pascual-Leone’s theory of
Wiley; constructive operators. Journal of Experimental Child
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or Psychology, 28, 314-322;
minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D.
information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97; R., & Karp, S. A. (1974) Psychological differentiation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
553