Font Size: a A A

Characteristics Of Motor Preparation And Motor Execution Of Tennis Player: An ERP Study

Posted on:2015-02-03Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:Y N LiFull Text:PDF
GTID:2297330431982671Subject:Human Movement Science
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
With the accelerated development of professional tennis,the speed of serving is faster andfaster. It is short for athletes to return of serve. Therefor, athletes must make a correctjudgment in a short time and take appropriate measures. It means that athletes shouldhave the rapid response capability, also rapid motor preparation. How can we control ourthinking and behavior has the central issue of cognitive neuroscience, the capability ofmotor preparation is the key to self-control. Preparation of brain is an important goal ofsuccessful implementation of the pilot directed behavior.Purpose:This study used an expert-novice paradigm, and combined the ERP recording system andlow resolution electromagnetic tomography, LORETA, to investigate the neuralmechanism on motor preparation and motor execution in tennis athletes.Result:Behavior:In test1, there was no significant difference in reaction time[F(1,18)=0.064,P=0.803]. In test2, there is a significant difference [F(1,18)=19.198, P<0.01]. The correctrate: significant main effect of task [F(1,18)=24.780, P <0.01],significant main effect ofgroup [F(1,18)=4.806, P=0.042], groups and task interaction is not significant[F(1,18)=0.216, P=0.648].ERP:(1) The CNV area: significant main effect of group[F(1,18)=5.420, P<0.01]. Electrodesites significant main effect [F(4,72)=41.878, P<0.01]. Groups and electrode sitesinteraction is not significant[F(4,72)=0.811,P=0.493].(2) P1/N1: in test2, latency and amplitude is not significant between two groups. Thelatency of N1is a significant difference [t=-4.976, P<0.01].(3) P300: Electrode sites significant main effect[F(1,18)=5.962, P=0.025]; significantmain effect of group[F(1,18)=7.060, P=0.016]; Groups and electrode sites interactionis not significant[F(1,18)=0.626, P=0.439]Conclusion:(1) In test2, all the subjects perform efficiently in the condition of dynamic material.(2) The athletes have advantages in movement preparation strategies.(3) The athletes devoted more attention resources during motor execution.
Keywords/Search Tags:motor preparation, dynamic material, CNV, P300
PDF Full Text Request
Related items