Proprioception entails the senses of the relative position that allows the body parts to grasp based on the strength or effort that is employed within the body. The sensations of the proprioception originate from the receptors that are presented within the joints and within the muscles of an individual's body. The primary purpose of the sensations in the human body allows an individual to determine whether the limbs are in space also known as the position sense. The impressions play a significant role in ensuring that human beings are in a position to know where and how to the move within their position sense. Additionally, proprioception focuses on relaying sensory information within the body, which allows an individual’s body to the respond to senses such as pain and touch. Other the aspect of passing sensory information, proprioception helps in giving information that carried by somatosensory pathways directed to the somatosensory cortex, which is located behind the central fissure (Contu, Hussain, Kager, Budhota, Deshmukh, Kuah, & Campolo, 2017).
Fine movements within the body are determined by proprioceptive feedback information, which acts as a critical determinant of how the body can respond to given expectations as part of ensuring that one achieves a specific sense of movement (Ghaffarinejad, Haghighi, Pirouzi, Taghizadeh, Motiallah, & Salehi, 2014). In an example, when placing a finger on a keyboard when typing, the proprioceptive feedback information helps in determining when the finger is expected to type as a way of giving out the expected feedback. From that perspective, it is clear that such information is essential towards determining motor movements taking into account the fact that the body tends to move in a manner that supports joint angles. In such cases, the movements may be categorized as being normal considering that they seek to ensure that the body moves in a uniformed manner (Bigongiari, Francica, Franciulli, Mochizuki, Hamill, & Ervilha, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The focus of this lab experiment is to evaluate two mechanisms with the sole focus being on trying to assess, which of the two mechanisms is more viable when compared to the other. The critical element of discussion is evaluated the movement and position sense of the body using a human subject as a way of determining the effectiveness of these mechanisms (Naserpour, H., & Sadeghi, 2017). The expected outcome is that this would help in creating that fundamental understanding of the mechanism that would have the highest rate of impact concerning the body expectations. In other words, the experiment will seek to evaluate the importance of efference copy to the oculomotor, or eye movement, system. The ultimate expectation during is that this would help provide some sense of understanding on what would be expected in ensuring that the body achieves uniform movements.
Method
The variables studied within this lab experiment are a movement without delay and movement after a delay of 15 seconds with the focus being on evaluating whether the delay may have an impact on the body’s ability for movement (Barbanera, M., Batista, Ultremare, Iwashita, & Ervilha, 2014). The sample selected for this study is 10 participants with the ability to comprehend the expected instructions taking note of the fact that this is important in ensuring that the experiment achieves some form of success margin. The critical element of focus during the investigation was to highlight the relationship between motor delays and movements. In other words, it is essential to evaluate essential variables that seek to determine the overall expectations regarding body movements while focusing on the general provisions from which to assess such bodily changes.
The primary materials used for the experiment were:
Ruler with an mm scale affixed to it. The ruler has a small nick made on its right side.
Stopwatch
Calculator
The experiment focused on allowing the participant to engage in two operations that would help determine the effectiveness of the delay in deciding the overall movement of the body. The experiments were categorized as 0 delay condition (1) and 15 sec delay condition (2) each of which has its own set of expectations as part of determining the general expectations regarding tracking the movements (Furmanek, Słomka, Sobiesiak, Rzepko, & Juras, 2018). In 0 delay condition (1), the participant, involved in the study, is expected to place the left and right index fingers on opposite sides of the ruler with the participant given the authority of having to determine the desired size and distance from the notch.
The participant is expected to make movements using the right index finger and immediately track the movements using the left index finger. The focus for such movements was to ensure that the researchers would be able to make adequate observations that would help determine whether the participant can track all the moves as per expectations. In the 15 sec delay condition (2), the focus was on having a 15-second delay between the movement by the right index finger and the tracking by the left index figure. The observations that the researchers sought to make focused on whether the delay in the tracking process may have had any significant impacts on the ability for the left index finger to track the movements made by the right index finger (Van de Winckel et al., 2017).
Results
The results of the experiment indicate that in the first experiment 0 delay condition (1), the errors occurring between the movement of the right index finger and the ability for the left index figure to track the moves were insufficient. The observations made to the movements indicated that the movements within the left index finger had a significant resemblance to the movements within the right finger (Kooroshfar & Kahrizi, 2017). The results showed that that movements associated with these two index fingers were somewhat similar taking into account that the campaign showed the same pattern. Although there was a significant similarity in the way the movements were made, there was a slight deviation of approximately 3 millimeters, which did not have any significant impacts on the results of the movements. This meant that the movement on the left hand was somewhat positive taking into account the fact that the movements did not show any significant variations regarding their presentation.
In the second experiment, 15 sec delay condition (2), the results showed a significant variation from the results in the first experiment considering that the movements by the left index finger showed substantial changes regarding tracking the actions by the right index finger. Based on the observations made, it was clear that the variations between the movements by the two figures showed a significant shift concerning expectation (Irving, Russell, & Smith, 2016). This sought to suggest the overall possibility that the 15 sec delay may have had a significant impact on the ability for the left index figure to track the movements by the right index finger. The variation recorded was as high as 10 millimeters, which sought to indicate that the movements were somewhat adverse regarding overall expectations and comparison (Holst-Wolf, Yeh, & Konczak, 2016).
The experiment was repeated ten times for the participant involved in the study with the focus being on trying to evaluate how the movements, in both cases, showed essential variations regarding expectations. The repetition of the experiment multiple times helped in highlight a significant difference regarding results for the study, which would support the overall position that the movements in both trials differed significantly (Abdulkarim, & Ehrsson, 2018). In both experiments, the standard deviation was one of the critical aspects of consideration to help in minimizing the errors recorded during the experiment. The following is the formula used in the calculation of the standard deviation for the experiment:
The hypothesis reflected upon within this experiment focused on the critical variation regarding the normal findings as part of the determining the extent to which the movements may differ as part of the set out experimental process. The following are operations adopted for each of the conditions:
| 0 seconds |
State 1 EC and MS |
| 15 seconds |
Condition 2 EC only |
When engaging in the repeated experiments, the principal focus was on trying to randomize the movements, as this would help in the collection of accurate data to help support the general conclusions of the study. The randomization of the changes also worked on ensuring that the participants would not be able to make conscious movements, which would affect the ultimate expectations of the project (Longo & Morcom, 2016). On the other hand, the researchers focused much attention on trying to determine how the movements varied explicitly focusing on the immediate and time-delayed movements. The critical element of focus was trying to decide whether these movements would result in significant shifts regarding the ability for the left index finger to track the movements by the right index finger.
Discussion
Based on the results, as discussed in the previous section, it is clear that the results showed a significant variation regarding effects, which sought to suggest that a time delay may influence the movement and position sense of the body. Naserpour & Sadeghi (2017) indicate that a time delay in body movements creates a significant variation regarding setting out expectations taking into account that it becomes somewhat challenging to determine the overall movements. That means that the body movements may experience a key variable regarding expectations with the focus being on identifying how the movement and position senses may shift in immediate and time-delayed movements.
Alternatively, the results showed a significant sense of connection when dealing with immediate movements. In movement and position sense, one of the key aspects to note is that the body can make particular changes regarding overall expectations when dealing with fast movements (Niespodziński, Kochanowicz, Mieszkowski, Piskorska, & Żychowska, 2018). Consequently, this acts as a clear indication that rapid movements tend to provide a leeway from which the body can track all the necessary movements without any notable variations. The results indicated that the differences arising when dealing with the immediate movement was less when compared to the mutations that occurred when dealing with time-delayed movements. That means that the body can track movements immediately after the movements are made with a time delay affecting the ability of the body to track such movements (Jahjah et al., 2018).
The results also sought to highlight the body tends to hold kinetic energy that would help in determining unconscious body movements. When making movements in a specific manner, one finds him or herself in a position from which to make the same movements over and over. That arises from the fact that the body holds kinetic energy, which, in turn, makes it much easier for the body to move according to the movements made immediately. However, this is different when dealing with time-delayed movements taking into account that the time delay creates a significant reduction in the body’s kinetic energy (Deblock-Bellamy, Batcho, Mercier, & Blanchette, 2018). Thus, this means that the body is not in a position to track the movements when dealing with time delays thereby creating a significant variation regarding movement and position sense. Ultimately, this seeks to support the general belief that tracking movements are only possible when dealing when immediate movements considering that any delays in time may create a significant variation regarding the expected ability for the body to track such progress.
Conclusion
In summary, the sensations of the proprioception originate from the receptors that are presented within the joints and within the muscles of an individual's body. In an example, when placing a finger on a keyboard when typing, the proprioceptive feedback information helps in determining when the finger is expected to sort as a way of giving out the expected feedback. The sample selected for this study is 10 participants with the ability to comprehend the expected instructions. The experiments were categorized as 0 delay condition (1) and 15 sec delay condition (2). The results showed a significant sense of connection when dealing with immediate movements.
References
Abdulkarim, Z., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2018). Recalibration of hand position sense during unconscious active and passive movement. Experimental brain research , 236 (2), 551-561.
Barbanera, M., Batista, J. P. B., Ultremare, J. D. M., Iwashita, J. D. S., & Ervilha, U. F. (2014). Semi-rigid brace and taping decrease variability of the ankle joint position sense. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física , 20 (4), 448-453.
Bigongiari, A., Francica, J. V., Franciulli, P. M., Mochizuki, L., Hamill, J., & Ervilha, U. F. (2018). Aerobic training in aquatic environment improves the position sense of stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física , 24 (1), 1-20.
Contu, S., Hussain, A., Kager, S., Budhota, A., Deshmukh, V. A., Kuah, C. W., ... & Campolo, D. (2017). Proprioceptive assessment in clinical settings: Evaluation of joint position sense in upper limb post-stroke using a robotic manipulator. PloS one , 12 (11), 1-16.
Deblock-Bellamy, A., Batcho, C. S., Mercier, C., & Blanchette, A. K. (2018). Quantification of upper limb position sense using an exoskeleton and a virtual reality display. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , 15 (1), 24-44.
Furmanek, M. P., Słomka, K. J., Sobiesiak, A., Rzepko, M., & Juras, G. (2018). The Effects of Cryotherapy on Knee Joint Position Sense and Force Production Sense in Healthy Individuals. Journal of human kinetics , 61 (1), 39-51.
Ghaffarinejad, F., Haghighi, F. M., Pirouzi, S., Taghizadeh, S., Motiallah, T., & Salehi, N. (2014). The Comparison of the Effect of Deep and Superficial Heat on Healthy Ankle Joint Position Sense. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research , 1 (3), 63-66.
Holst-Wolf, J. M., Yeh, I., & Konczak, J. (2016). Development of proprioceptive acuity in typically developing children: normative data on forearm position sense. Frontiers in human neuroscience , 10 , 436.
Irving, F., Russell, J., & Smith, T. (2016). Reliability of knee joint position sense measurement: a comparison between goniometry and image capture methods. European Journal of Physiotherapy , 18 (2), 95-102.
Jahjah, A., et al. (2018). The effect of ankle tape on joint position sense after local muscle fatigue: a randomized controlled trial. BMC musculoskeletal disorders , 19 (1), 8-15.
Kooroshfar, N., & Kahrizi, S. (2017). Comparing Knee Joint Position Sense in Patellofemoral Pain and Healthy Futsal Women. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research , (0), 192-192.
Longo, M. R., & Morcom, R. (2016). No correlation between distorted body representations underlying tactile distance perception and position sense. Frontiers in human neuroscience , 10 , 593-609.
Naserpour, H., & Sadeghi, H. (2017). The Effect of Short-Term Use of Cold Spray on Strength and Ankle Joint Position Sense in Professional Wrestlers. Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 3(2), 43-50.
Niespodziński, B., Kochanowicz, A., Mieszkowski, J., Piskorska, E., & Żychowska, M. (2018). The relationship between Joint Position Sense, Force Sense, and Muscle Strength and the Impact of Gymnastic Training on Proprioception. BioMed research international , 5(4), 1-22.
Van de Winckel, A., et al. (2017). Age-Related Decline of Wrist Position Sense and its Relationship to Specific Physical Training. Frontiers in human neuroscience , 11 (3), 1-7.
