Bachelor of Science with Honours Applied Sport Science Year 1 Applied Sport Science SPRT08002 1Ah What are

e the main differences between top-down and bottom-up theories of how coordination is achieved? Examine how one of these theories could apply in the context of learning to lay up a basketball? Chris Egan s1135770 14/11/2011 10:00

What are the main differences between top-down and bottom-up theories of how coordination is achieved? Examine how one of these theories could apply in the context of learning to lay up a basketball? The two main approaches answering the question of how co-ordination is achieved are Top-down and Bottom-up theories. Both theories differ in their view on the degrees of freedom problem explained by Bernstein (1967) as process of reducing the degrees of freedom of the movement system and thus making it controllable. The Top-down theory is based on the information processing approach whereas Bottom-up theory represents a dynamic system approach. It is extremely important for coaches to be aware of the positive and negative aspects of both theories and thus be able to implement the right approach into the teaching process of a relevant skill. Basketball lay-up is a skill learned ordinarily in principles of Top-down theory, in which cognitive aspects of adopting a skill by learner are predominant. Top-down theory is a cognitive approach where a super-ordinate center is in charge of co-ordination. The central nervous system, specifically brain, receives input in form of sensory data. Schmidt (1988) explains the path of stimuli and response as following. After it identifies the stimulus, brain selects a proper response. Subsequently, after being selected, response is programmed. This action results in output, the instructions for movement. These are consecutively sent to the movement effectors represented by muscular-skeletal system. Based on the presence or absence of feedback in the movement, we distinguish between Open-loop and Closed-loop control. The Open-loop control lacks feedback provided by the movement effectors to the brain. It occurs predominantly in ballistic movements that are extremely rapid, such as a golf swing or a football kick. The positive features of Open-loop

control in performing a movement are high consistency resulting from little variability, and space provided to other conscious processes (Schmidt, 1988). However, Adams (1971) argued that open- skill control is extremely rare in most of the skills. He introduced the closed-loop control in which feedback emerges from sensations of muscles involved, movement, and environment. The feedback can be task-intrinsic (proprioception, vision) and augmented by coaches or teachers (Magill, 2010). The feedback is then compared with comparator form response programming (efference copy) of the motor program (Schmidt, 1988). This provides a performer with the mechanism of movement correction and is used in unpredictable situations that demand high concentration. In both, the Closed-loop and the Open-loop control, the movement control center is represented by brain, which either receives feedback from movement effectors or controls the movement without further feedback. The second theory is Dynamic system approach (Bottom-up) which describes coordination without presence of mental control of movement. The co-ordination emerges from interactions between body, task and environment as self-organization within constraints (Magill, 2010). Affected by many interacting elements (constraints) movement patterns arise spontaneously as a characteristic of the dynamical system. According to Magill (2010) constraints are therefore various external and internal factors that affect a skill. Newel (1986), introduced a constraints model dividing constraints into: organismic, environmental and task related. Organismic constraints are individuals physical (structural) and mental (functional) features. The structural organismic constraints are predominately time-independent, represented by height, fat-free body mass, length of limbs and other physical features. On the contrary, the functional organismic constraints are timedependent, being able to change rapidly. These include motivation, attention, state anxiety

and further mental characteristics. Task constraints involve rules, goals and equipment used while executing the movement. Environmental constraints are related to physical surroundings and socio cultural factors. The major environmental constraints are gravity, altitude, weather conditions, and opportunity of provision of an area (Magill, 2010). Practical implications of Top-down and Bottom-up approach described by Magill (2010) are highly diverse. While Top-down theory is implemented by coaches in form of verbal instructions about the proper sequencing of the movement leading to co-ordination, the Bottom-up approach puts coaches main focus on manipulating constraints leading to optimal self-development of movement pattern. In both, Information-Processing and Dynamic system approach coaches aid in learning by giving instructions. In Dynamic system approach, athletes are led to reach co-ordination through trial and failure by improvement and discovery. Therefore, the optimal movement pattern differs from person to person. On the other hand, the Information- Processing approach uses demonstrations of exact movements of body part. One of the typical characteristics of Top-down approach are drills focused on partial- practice where authenticity of real movement decreases. On the contrary, Bottom-up approach aims on a whole-practice with manipulation of constraints which is specific and highly cognitive with the real performance. Basketball lay-up is complex skill that teaches the learner to move both sides of their body. Because of the intricacy of basketball, lay-up coaches prefer to teach the skill by Top-down approach. Athletes are instructed to practice every segment of lay-up separately. At the end, they put the pieces (separate segments of movements) together and thus become able to perform the skill properly. Coach teaches athlete an exact movement pattern of every body part involved in executing lay-up. Trial and error principle of individual

development of skill used in Bottom-up approach are avoided. At first, the learner must understand that the power of the shot comes from shoulder joint in cooperation with other body joints. Drill being used to assist in helping the learner to understand the origin of power in the movement is pushing a ball up against the wall. Then, coach explains the proper footwork vital in every aspect of basketball including lay-up (Kraus, V. J., Meyer, D., Meyer, J., 2008). Apart from putting stress on the right angle, player has to know the correct jumping technique by adopting one-foot jumps, stamping hard on jumping foot while using opposite leg to produce a vertical jump. Shooting hand and knee come up at the same time creating the right momentum (Kraus, V. J., Meyer, D., Meyer, J., 2008). Cognitive approach is predominantly used in teaching to lay-up a basketball; nevertheless, due to the fact that the skill is taught partially in more different segments, its correlation with reality is limited. Top-down and Bottom-up approaches are diverse theories on how co-ordination can be achieved. Their aim is to reduce the degrees of freedom and thus make the whole system controllable with the ability to reach co-ordination. The Bottom-up approach states that co-ordination emerges within interaction between body, task and environment. The Top-down approach explains that co-ordination is induced by controller (brain). Since in the Top-down approach coaches give instructions about movements of specific body parts and sequence the skill, this approach is predominantly used in teaching learners to lay-up a basketball, which is a highly complex skill operated by the whole body.

References Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-150. Bernstein, N.A. (1967). The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krause, J., Meyer, D., Meyer, J. (2008). Basketball Skills and Drills. 3rd ed. United States of America: Human Kinetics. 2, 16. Magill, R. A. (2010). Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Newell, K.M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. Dordrecht, Germany: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.