Measurement of Bilateral Transfer in a Lab Setting to Predict Success in a Sport Setting

Jordan Holm

BackgroundAcquiring motor skills require various training strategies to develop.

Bilateral transfer is “The transfer of learning between two limbs.” (Magill & Anderson, 309).

Commonly examined in controlled laboratory settings. Some research has been done on using bilateral transfer as a training strategy for certain sport activities.

Lack or research that compares bilateral transfer observed in laboratory and sport settings.

Literature Review

• Amount of transfer between limbs varies when measuring certain training aspects

• Timing has seen positive training results while fine force production has not benefited from bilateral training (Erdilet al., 2013)

• Although a previous table tennis study found that professional accuracy improved with bilateral transfer training (Horníková et al., 2020).

• More complex fine motor tasks also have seen a greater benefit for using bilateral training (Kidgell et al., 2017)

Literature Review Cont.

• Use of fMRI shows that areas of the brain that control learning limb activate while the other limb is completing the activity (Magill & Anderson, 312-314)

• Suggesting level of cognitive attention can dictate the amount of transfer that occurs.

• Transfer occurs regardless of what limb is preferred.

• Bilateral transfer is effective on amputee patient success in response to new prosthetics (Weeks et al., 2013)

Purpose• The purpose of the present study is to

identify if a significantly positive correlation exists between the amount of transfer observed in a laboratory setting and a sport setting.

Hypothesis

• Ha: It is hypothesized that there will be a positive statistically significant relationship between the bilateral transfer observed from the mirror test and the table tennis serve test.

• Ho:There will be no statistically significant relationship between the bilateral transfer observed from the mirror test and from the table tennis serve test.

Methods

• Participants• Participants were recruited from MSUB

campus and the Billings community.

• Requirements• Healthy• No wrist injuries• No prior practice in any of the tested

activities prior to testing

Participants

• Total of 13 participants were willing to take part in the study (7 males and 6 females).

• All participants were between the ages of 18-59 years (mean = 23.5± 7.1 years).

• 10 participants preferred their right hand for the tracing task. 3 Participants preferred their left hand for the tracing task

• 11 participants preferred their right hand for the table tennis task. 2 participants preferred their left hand for the table tennis task.

Procedure

• IRB approval was obtained before any data collection began

• Consent form and General information such as age, sex, preferred hand for table tennis and writing, and table tennis experience.

• 2 phases• Laboratory phase (mirror tracing task)• Sport phase (table tennis serve task)

• Both phases involved a pretest, 5 practice trials, and a posttest.

• Pretest and posttest were completed with the preferred hand.

• 5 practice trials were completed with the non-preferred hand.

• 30-second rest period given between each trial.

Procedure (mirror tracing task)

• Participants are required to trace a star while looking into a mirror. Tracing starts at the top point of the star and ends when the stylus reaches that same point.

• Anytime the stylus deviates outside the tracing lines, an error is recorded.

• Upon completion of each trial the participant’s completion time and number of errors will be recorded.

• Scores will be calculated using the following equation Score = 100/(seconds + errors)

Procedure (table tennis serve task)

• Participants will be required to serve a table tennis ball to a designated square that is outlined with masking tape on the table.

• Each trial consisting of 10 serves.• Serves will be completed in a forehand

position

• Targets will be located across the table and on the opposite side of the server

• A score between 0-30 will be recorded for each trial.

Procedure (table tennis serve task) cont.

• Scoring• A total of 3 squares will be taped on the table

each one getting progressively smaller.• The smaller squares will rest inside their

larger counterparts.• The outer square will be worth 1 point

(Length & width=12”), middle square worth 2 points (L & W=8”), the innermost square worth 3 points (L & W=4”).

• Any ball landing outside the outer square is worth 0 points.

• Total trial score will be the sum of points earned for all 10 serves.

• Scores will be calculated for each trial.

Data Analysis

• % improvement was calculated for both tasks using the following equation.

• % improvement = (Post-test score – pre-test score)/Post-test score * 100

• Pearson’s r• Examination of the correlation that

exists between the mirror tracing and table tennis tasks.

• Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Results• Scores improved for every participant

between pre and posttests for the mirror tracing task (Mean pretest score = 1.34 ± 0.98; Mean posttest score = 2.19 ±0.98).

• Posttest scores had shown to have mixed results. 4 of the participants did worse on the posttest compared to 9 participants that improved (Mean pretest score = 7.23 ± 4.00; Mean posttest score = 7.38 ± 3.10).

Participant Pretest score mirror tracing

Posttest score

mirror tracing

Pretest score table tennis

Posttest score table tennis

1 3.56 4.32 4 72 0.77 1.82 8 123 0.54 0.99 9 64 0.42 0.9 4 75 2.12 3.1 5 36 0.62 1.23 8 87 2.93 3.03 5 118 1.69 1.93 12 29 0.62 3.11 16 9

10 0.7 1.82 8 1111 1.19 1.63 1 412 1.11 2.26 4 713 1.19 2.28 10 9

Results: average pre

and posttest score

comparison1.34

7.23

2.19

7.38

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

mirror tracing table tennis

scor

e

Comparison of Pre and Posttest Scores for Mirror Tracing and Table Tennis Tasks

pretest posttest

Results: Typical results found for each trial for both tasks

2.12

2.97 3.03

3.58 3.413.66

3.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

pretest 2 3 4 5 6 posttest

scor

e

Trials (pretest and posttest preferred hand) (trials 2-5 non-preferred hand)

Participant 5's Scores for Each Trial During Mirror Tracing Task.

5

7

32

10

7

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

pretest 2 3 4 5 6 posttest

Scor

e

Trials (pretest and posttest preferred hand) (trials 2-5 non-preferred hand)

Participant 5's Scores for Each Trial During Table Tennis Task

Mirror Tracing Task Table Tennis Task

Results: % Improvement for both tasks

• All participants exhibited positive transfer for the mirror tracing task (mean = 41.4± 21.8%).

• 4 Participants exhibited negative transfer with one reaching -500% transfer between limbs. The remaining 9 had varying degrees of positive transfer for the table tennis task (mean = -29.8±149.3 %).

Participant % improvement in mirror tracing task

% improvement in table tennis task

1 17.6 42.92 57.7 33.33 45.5 -504 53.3 42.95 31.6 -66.76 49.6 07 3.3 54.58 12.4 -5009 80.1 -77.8

10 61.5 27.311 27 7512 50.9 42.913 47.8 -11.1

Results: Correlation between % improvement observed for both tasks

• The results showed no significant correlation exists between the % improvement observed for mirror tracing and table tennis (r = 0.25, p = .062).

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% im

prov

emen

t in

tabl

e te

nnis

% improvement in mirror tracing

Correlation percent improvement between mirror tracing and table tennis

Discussion

• The tasks chosen likely did not contain similar fine motor control actions which lead to the drastically different results.

• Performance pressure was likely a factor that effected table tennis posttest performance.

• Mirror tracing require higher cognitive attention compared to the table tennis task.

• Table tennis task possibly did not have an adequate training period for bilateral transfer to show better results.

Discussion Cont.

• Limitations:• Sample size• Training period was likely too short for

adequate transfer to occur. • Some individuals had prior experience

in table tennis• Only examined transfer going from the

non-preferred limb to the preferred limb

• Did not assess any gross movement tasks.

Related Research

• Erdil et al., 2013• Examined a 16-week training period

where bilateral transfer was introduced.• Participants practiced with their non-

preferred hands for 10 minutes a day for 5 days each week.

• Testing involved aiming at specific targets posted on the table.

• Did not specify dimensions, location, and shape of the targets.

• Mirror Tracing • High complexity• Good measure of bilateral transfer.

Future Research

• Discover if correlation exists between laboratory task and a sport tasks that both use fine force control and precision.

• Longer training period should be implemented to allow more time for transfer to occur.

• Larger sample size should be used.• Alternate target locations should be used on

the table tennis table.• Participants should not know any scores

until after their posttest score is recorded.• Different aspects of table tennis such as

receiving and spiking.• Bilateral transfer effects on gross motor

tasks should be pursued.

References• Akinci, Y., & Kirazci, S. (2020). Effects of visual, verbal, visual + verbal feedback on learning of dribbling and lay-up skill. Sport Mont, 18(1), 63–68.

• Antosiak-cyrak, K., Podciechowska, K., Jajor, J., & Rostkowska, E. (2015). Functional asymmetry of the lower limbs in young soccer players. Trends in Sport Sciences, 22(4), 207–215.

• Erdil, G., Ölçücü, B., Kaya, F., Sabrioğlu, S., & Kaya, Y. (2013). The effect of the training with recessive hand on the hitting percentage of shots performed with the dominant hand for table tennis players. Journal of Physical Education & Sports Science, 7(1), 69–74.

• Focke, A., Spancken, S., Stockinger, C., Thürer, B., & Stein, T. (2016). Bilateral practice improves dominant leg performance in long jump. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(7), 787–793.

• Gray, R., & Allsop, J. (2013). Interactions between performance pressure, performance streaks, and attentional focus. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35(4), 368–386.

• Gilbert, D. E., & Wells, M. T. (2019). Ludometrics: luck, and how to measure it. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 15(3), 225–237.

• Horníková, H., Doležajová, L., & Zemková, E. (2020). Agility performance of ipsilateral and contralateral direction of table tennis players and sedentary subjects of different ages. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education & Recreation, 42(1), 13–22.

• Inui, N. (2005). Lateralization of bilateral transfer of visuomotor information in right-handers and left-hander s. journal of motor behavior, 37(4), 275–283.

• Issurin, V. (2013). Training transfer: scientific background and insights for practical application. Sports Medicine, 43(8), 675–694.

• Kidgell, D. J., Frazer, A. K., & Pearce, A. J. (2017). The effect of task complexity influencing bilateral transfer. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(8), 1174–1183.

• Kumar, S., & Mandal, M. (2005). Bilateral transfer of skill in left- and right-handers. Laterality, 10(4), 337–344.

• Latash, M. L. (1999). Mirror writing: learning, transfer, and implications for internal inverse models. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31(2), 107.

References Cont.• Liu, J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2005). Immediate and delayed bilateral transfer of throwing accuracy in male and female children. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 76(1), 20-27.

• Macari, J. (2007). Motor learning for wrestling coaches. Ontario Wrestler, 13.

• Magill, R., & Anderson, D. (2017). Motor learning and control: concepts and applications (11th edition). Mcgraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121.

• Pan, Z., & van Gemmert, A. W. A. (2013). The direction of bilateral transfer depends on the performance parameter. Human Movement Science, 32(5), 1070–1081.

• Romkema, S., Bongers, R. M., & Van Der Sluis, C. K. (2013). Intermanual transfer in training with an upper-limb myoelectric prosthesis simulator: a mechanistic, randomized, pretest-posttest study. Physical Therapy, 93(1), 22–31.

• Shreffler, M. B., Cocco, A. R., Presley, R. G., & Police, C. C. (2019). Testing the learning styles hypothesis: an assessment of the learning styles, learning approaches, and course outcomes in the sport management classroom. Sport Management Education Journal (Human Kinetics), 13(2), 83–91.

• Stöckel, T., & Weigelt, M. (2012). Plasticity of human handedness: decreased one-hand bias and inter-manual performance asymmetry in expert basketball players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(10), 1037–1045

• Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P., Vella, S. A., Allen, M. S., & Keegan, R. (2017). Performing under pressure: exploring the psychological state underlying clutch performance in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(23), 2272–2280.

• Teixeira, L. A. (2000). Timing and force components in bilateral transfer of learning. Brain and cognition, 44(3), 455-469.

• Uggetti, C., Ausenda, C. D., Squarza, S., Cadioli, M., Grimoldi, L., Cerri, C., & Cariati, M. (2016). Bilateral transfer phenomenon: a functional magnetic resonance imaging pilot study of healthy subjects. The Neuroradiology Journal, 29(4), 250–253.

• Wallace, S. A., Anderson, D. I., Trujillo, M., & Weeks, D. L. (2005). Upper extremity artificial limb control as an issue related to movement and mobility in daily living. Quest (00336297), 57(1), 124.

• Wan X . Yao, Cordova, A., Yufei huang, Yan Wang, & Xing Lu. (2014). Bilateral transfer for learning to control timing but not for learning to control fine force. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 118(2), 400–410.

• Weeks, D. L., Wallace, S. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2003). Training with an upper-limb prosthetic simulator to enhance transfer of skill across limbs. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 84(3), 437-443.