Motor Behavior

Evaluating the Role of Kinematic Factors in Predicting the Motor Performance of Gymnastic children aged 10-12 years by Examining the Effect of Choking Under Pressure

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

mahta eskandarnejad 1
hussam yaseen 2
shirin yazdani 3

1 associated professor

2 PHD student in Motor behavior, University of Tabriz

3 department of motor behavior, faculty of physical education and sport science, university of Tabriz

https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2023.13709.2060
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to evaluating the role of kinematic factors in predicting the motor performance of gymnastic children aged 10-12 years by examining the effect of choking under pressure. The statistical sample of the research consisted of 40 skilled female gymnasts with an age range of 10-12 years, who were selected as available and their motor performance (execution of a chain of gymnastic floor movements) after evaluating some kinematic factors (motion range and sense joint position) was measured and evaluated in low-pressure and high-pressure conditions by two referees and a gymnastics coach. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential (linear regression) methods in SPSS software. The results of the research showed that kinematic factors in conditions of high pressure can predict the motor performance of gymnasts. Therefore, it can be concluded that kinematic factors may play a significant role in predicting the motor performance of gymnasts under psychological pressure and change it.

Keywords

Gymnastics
Kinematic
Performance
Choking under Pressure

Subjects

  1.  

    1. Lemos C, Santos D, Soares N. Physical fitness related to sportive performance in artistic gymnastics. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano. 2017;19:743-50.
    2. Nikouzadeh A, Safabakhsh AH, Nasl Seraji Sh, Bakhshi R. The effect of eight weeks of gymnastics training on selected physical parameters in girls with emphasis on body type. First National Conference on Applied Studies in Sports Science, Tonekabon; 2016. (In Persian).
    3. Erbani H. Comparison of joint range of motion and muscle endurance in Taekwondo, Wushu and Karate athletes [Master´s thesis]: [Guilan]. University of Guilan; 2017. (In Persian).
    4. Ireland ML. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes; epidemiology. Journal of Athletic Training. 1999;34(2):150-54.
    5. Samadi H, Rajabi R, Karimizadeh Ardakani M. The effect of six weeks of neuromuscular training on joint position sense and lower extremity function in male athletes with functional ankle instability. Journal of Exercise Science and Medicine. 2017;9(18):15-33.  (In Persian).
    6. Eskanderjad M, Yazdani Sh, Jalal Sahandi N. Investigation of the kinematic variable of the range of motion of the foot joints around the vertical axis in the implementation of the 360-degree pirouette movement of gymnastics. The Second International Conference on Modern Researches in Sports Sciences and Physical Education, Hamedan; 2016.
    7. Asadi M, Sadeghi H. The relationship between lower extremity range of motion and biomechanical parameters selection of boys 7 to 9 years. Research in Sport Medicine and Technology. 2021;19(21):77-84. (In Persian).
    8. Seyyedi M, Seidi F, Minoonejad H, Biglar K. Comparison and investigation of relationship between lower extremity strength and active range of motion of the ankle with static and dynamic balance in deaf athletes and non-athletes, Journal of Sport Medicine Review. 2022;13(29):59-76. (In Persian).
    9. Sedaghati P, Zolghare H, Shahbazi M. The effect of proprioceptive, vestibular and visual changes on posture control among the athletes with and without medial tibial stress syndrome.  2019;23(1):68-74. 
    10. Maysloon D, Al-Shadiedh K, Ayat D, Salem A, Khataybeh A, Khalaf K, et al. Sources of anxiety among female physical education students enrolled in the gymnastics course at al Al-Bayt University. 2022;1:6193-6205.
    11. Orn A. Effects of pressure and free throw routine on basketball kinematics and sport performance [Master´s thesis]: [Arizona]. Arizona State University; 2017.
    12. Mesagno Ch, Hill D. Definition of choking in sport: re-conceptualization and debate. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 2013;44:267-77.
    13. Baumeister RF. Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984;46(3):610–20.
    14. Murayama T, Sekiya H. Factors related to choking under pressure in sports and the relationships among them. International Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2015;
    15. Mullen R, Hardy L, Tattersall A. The effect of anxiety on motor performance: a test of the conscious processing hypothesis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2005;27:212–25.
    16. Beilock SL, Carr TH. On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001;130(4):701–25.
    17. Mesagno C, Geukes K, Larkin P. Choking under pressure: a review of current debates, literature, and interventions. In Mellalieu S, Hanton S (editors). Contemporary advances in sport psychology. London, UK: Routledge; 2015, pp. 148-70.
    18. Beckmann J, Gröpel P, Ehrlenspiel F. Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-specific priming: cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013;142:679–91.
    19. Mullen R, Hardy L. State anxiety and motor performance: testing the conscious processing hypothesis. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2000;18(10):785-99.
    20. Mullineaux DR, Uhl TL. Coordination-variability and kinematics of misses versus swishes of basketball free throws. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010;28(9):1017-24.
    21. Cooke A, Kavussanu M, McIntyre D, Boardley ID, Ring C. Effects of competitive pressure on expert performance: underlying psychological, physiological, and kinematic mechanisms. Psychophysiology. 2011;48(8):1146-56.
    22. Semenov D, Shlyakhtov V, Rumyantsev A. Kinematic analysis as the basis for training strategy in gymnastics. BIO Web Conference. 2021;29:01012.
    23. Scoring Guide. Available at: British Gymnastics.org/scoring-guide.
    24. Takala E-P, Viikari-Juntura E. Do Functional tests predict low back pain? Spine. 2000;25(16):2126-32.
    25. Fouladi R, Nasseri N, Rajabi R, Geranmayeh M. Joint position sense of the knee in healthy female athletes across the menstrual cycle. Scientific journal of Semnan University of Medical Sciences. 2010;12(1):31-9.
    26. Yazdanparast F, Salehi H, Lenjannejadian Sh. Kinematic changes in tennis serve under competitive pressure. Development & Motor Learning. 2016;8(23):157-70. (In Persian).
    27. Oshikawa T, Morimoto Y, Adachi G, Akuzawa H, Kaneoka K. Changes in lumbar kinematics and trunk muscle electromyographic activity during baseball batting under psychological pressure. International Biomechanics. 2020;7(1):66–75.
    28. Eskandarnejad M. Ghorbantabar Omran H. Effect of mental toughness levels on state anxiety under stress. Biannual Journal of Applied Health Studies in Sport Physiology. 2015;2(1):79-87. 
    29. Beilock SL, Gray R. Why do athletes choke under pressure? In Tenenbaum G, Eklund RC (editors). Handbook of sports psychology (3rd ed). New York: Wiley; 2007, pp. 425–44.
    30. Higuchi T, Imanaka K, Hatayama T. Freezing degrees of freedom under stress: kinematic evidence of constrained movement strategies. Hum Mov Sci. 2002;21(5–6):831–46.
    31. Pijpers JJ, Oudejans RR, Bakker FC. Anxiety induced changes in movement behavior during the execution of a complex whole body task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2055;58:421–45.
    32. Land W, Tenenbaum G. An outcome- and process-oriented examination of a golf-specific secondary task strategy to prevent choking under pressure. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2012;24(3):303-22.
    33. Gray R. Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 2004;10:42–54.
    34. Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science. 29165;149:269–74.
    35. Yu R. Choking under pressure: the neuropsychological mechanisms of incentive-induced performance decrements. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:19.
    36. Ariely D, Gneezy U, Loewenstein G, Mazar N. Large stakes and big mistakes. Rev Econ Stud. 2009;76:451–69.
    37. Cohen-Zada D, Krumer A, Rosenboim M, Shapir OM. Choking under pressure and gender: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2017;61:176–90.
    38. Hickman DC, Metz NE. The impact of pressure on performance: evidence from the PGA tour. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization. 2015;116:319–30.
    39. Cao Z, Price J, Stone D. Performance under pressure in the NBA. Journal of Sports Economics. 2011;12:231–52.
    40. Toma M. Missed shots at the free-throw line: analyzing the determinants of choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Economics. 2017;18(6):539–59.
    41. Lohse KR, Sherwood DE, Healy AF. How changing the focus of attention affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography. North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Tucson; 2010.

     

Motor Behavior
Volume 15, Issue 53
April 2023
Pages 83-100

  • Receive Date 26 October 2022
  • Revise Date 03 November 2023
  • Accept Date 26 November 2023

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us