Generalized Motor Program Theory (GMP) also known as Schema Theory and Dynamical Systems Theory are two competing theories attempting to understand how the brain and nervous system produces and controls movement. As human movement is complicated yet in someways effortless many theoretical issues arise. These two theories attempt to articulate a working understanding of movement addressing the issues which are considered a challenge to movement. The main theoretical issue with human movement research and theories seek to resolve what is called the degrees of freedom problem (Schmidt, 1975).
The concept behind the degrees of freedom problem is a complex web of points of communication (brain & nerves) which do not receive the signal communicating the command to move at the same time but must act at a specific point in the movement for complex movement to be possible (Magill, 2014). For example, if a person is trying to kick a ball, one leg needs to stand still while the other leg has the hip, knee and foot moving in sequence to accomplish the task. If each point of communication acts upon receiving the command the movement will be uncoordinated and fail. At each point in the nervous system the signal is relayed through nodes which somehow adapt to the time in which the signal was received, the time at which other points will receive the signal and when coordinated movement will occur.
The Generalized Motor Program Theory seeks to address the issue of coordination caused by the degree of freedom problem with gmps or generalized motor programs located within the nervous system. These gmps contain memory and as their name states with generalized or basic movement programming (Magill, 2014). Through open loop communication which allows feedback within the communication of the nervous system local nerves can accept input and respond based on programming protocols contained within the local memory with little or no feedback from the brain. Much like a microcontroller unit or MCU in a computer system contains enough memory and processing power to receive, process and react to inputs, the nervous system has local memory units throughout the body with the ability to process data without the input of the master processor the brain.
The Dynamical Systems Theory is similar to GMP in that movement or skills can be learned. The main difference in Dynamical Systems Theory is the idea what is learned is not limited to the muscle, nerve, limb in which the movement was conducted (Magill, 2014). Meaning once a movement is learned it is conceptualized, modified and adaptable to future movements. Dynamical Systems Theory addresses the issue of coordination by theorizing preformed movement is learned as concepts which after learned are available to other areas of the body not limited to the nerve and muscles which the original movement took place.
Unlike GMP, Dynamical Systems Theory takes into account the environment, believing there is a need to understand what is being perceived (Magill, 2014). By taking in and understanding the environment the brain and nervous system are able to learn movement as a conceptual response allowing it to be recalled, modified and used again in the future (Kelso, 1995). This difference between GMP and Dynamical Systems Theory is what makes Dynamical Systems Theory attractive to many scholars.
Empirical Research
Generalized Motor Program Theory answers the degrees of freedom problem with the nervous system containing local memory and processing units which allows input responses without the brain’s involvement and allows each local node to process and modify commands from the brain as required. Meigh (2017) conducted research which demonstrated the reactions times for new movements were slower than those which had previously been completed. This experiment demonstrated movements which have previously been performed were stored within local memory units allowing the reaction causing the movement to increase in speed. This study demonstrates what athletes and repetitive movement professionals call muscle memory. The idea if an action is repeated it becomes second nature or a movement not requiring the brain’s input or active thought to occur (Paulsell, 2017). In practice, physical education and sports training programs are based on Generalized Motor Program Theory or closely related variations (Di Tore, Schiavo, & D’isanto, 2016; Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008).
The Dynamical Systems Theory answers the degrees of freedom problem by allowing for movement to be learned as concepts (Magill, 2014). These concepts are easily retrieved and performed without the need of the brain’s input. This is similar to GMP with the improved understanding movement is not exact and ridged or locked to a specific area of the body. Through the work of Kelso and Zanone (2002) it is observed the dynamic benefit of Dynamical Systems Theory. Demonstrating subjects learning a specific movement with one hand then being able to perform the same movement with the other hand. For example, a child who learns how to create a piece sign with the right hand for the first time is without instruction able to create the piece sign with the left hand. A more complicated example would be when a child learns how to hold a cup with one hand. The child is almost instantly able to hold the same cup with the other hand. The child learned the movement of grabbing and holding the cup as a concept which was able to be utilized by the other hand.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both theories attempt to address the challenges of understanding human movement and the degrees of freedom problem. Although both theories have their strong points and research centered around understanding the application of each theory Generalized Motor Program Theory appears to be the more likely theory to be accurate. Although the key understanding of Dynamical Systems Theory which allows for a more conceptual learning rather than ridged learning of movement is appealing, Generalized Motor Program Theory is more repeatable and observable through experimentation. Generalized Motor Program Theory could be synonymous with the concept of muscle memory which is the primary form of training by athletes in a wide range of sports. Although, Generalized Motor Program Theory stands out as the most likely of the two theories to be correct it is possible the systems of movement in the human body contain pieces of both theories. For example, precise learning of movements but the information learned being available to other parts of the body such as the opposite limb. There is still much work to be done to understand and verify the systems and processes of movement within the human body.
References
Di Tore, P. A., Schiavo, R., & D’isanto, T. (2016). Physical education, motor control and motor learning: theoretical paradigms and teaching practices from kindergarten to high school. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 16(4), 1293–1297. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=120826469&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kelso, J. A. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kelso, J. A., Zanone, P. G. (2002). Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer across different effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 28(4):776-97.
Magill, R. A. (2014). Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN-13: 9780078022678
Meigh, K. M. (2017). A Novel Investigation of Generalized Motor Program Theory: Syllable Stress as a Motor-Class Variable. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60, 1685–1694. doi: 10.1044/2017
Schmidt, R. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review. 82(4): 225–260. doi: 10.1037/h0076770
Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Motor learning and performance: a situation-based learning approach: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Paulsell, S. (2017). Theological muscle memory. The Christian Century, (20), 35. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.509321587&site=eds-live&scope=site
Tuzson, A. E., & Bennett, B. C. (2007). Relative timing patterns of walking in children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, S137. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=25216361&site=eds-live&scope=site