PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Immink

Publications and source records attributed to M Immink.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Consistent and variable practice conditions: effects on relative and absolute timing.

The authors conducted the present experiments to resolve the discrepancy between studies in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced by consistent practice conditions and contextual interference experiments in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced more by random practice than by blocked practice. There were 40 participants in Experiment 1 and 48 in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 1 extended previous findings: The learning of the relative-timing pattern was systematically enhanced by the degree to which the practice conditions promoted movement consistency (constant > blocked > serial > random). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the discrepancy between the relative-timing effects in the 2 groups of studies was a product of the way in which relative-timing goals and feedback were presented. When the feedback was presented as segment times, random practice resulted in generally more stable relative-timing patterns during acquisition than blocked practice did. Thus, in both experiments, the learning of the relative-timing pattern was enhanced by more stable relative-timing conditions during acquisition. Absolute-timing learning, as indexed by the transfer tests, was enhanced by serial or random practice as compared with constant or blocked practice, and was relatively unaffected by feedback conditions directed at the relative-timing pattern. In terms of motor programming theory, those findings are taken as additional evidence for the disassociation of memories supporting generalized motor program (GMP) performance, as indexed by relative timing, and parameter performance, as indexed by absolute timing.

Computers↗

Bioimpedance or anthropometry?

The ability of bioimpedance (BIA) to predict body composition in comparison with anthropometric measurements (weight and height) was assessed on three groups of adult young women (n = 99) and one group of adult young men (n = 49). Body fat (BF) and fat-free mass (FFM) by densitometry were used as the reference data. Resistance and reactance separately or together were poor predictors of BF and FFM, explaining from 0 to a maximum of 21 per cent of the FFM variation in the different groups. BF followed the same pattern, though the percentage of variance explained by both variables was even lower. Height squared divided by resistance (H2/R) explained from 22 to 68 per cent of the FFM variation and from 0 to 40 per cent of BF variation. Height alone was comparable to H2/R explaining from 11 to 53 per cent of the FFM variance in the four groups studied. Body weight was found to be the best single predictor of body composition; it explained from 56 to 78 per cent of FFM and 37 to 82 per cent of BF variability. Using stepwise regression analysis with all women combined, weight accounted for 70 per cent of the total FFM variation, with height and H2/R contributing only another 5 per cent. The same was found in men (68 vs 73 per cent respectively). The reported equation of Segal et al. was applied to our group, yielding almost the same high FFM prediction (r2 greater than 0.7 and SEE less than 2.5 kg).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adipose Tissue↗