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