Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 935 items for :

  • Motor Control x
  • Athletic Training, Therapy, and Rehabilitation x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Volume 29 (2025): Issue 1 (Jan 2025)

Free access

A Commentary on Latash: “Useful and Useless Misnomers in Motor Control”

Grace Niyo and Francisco J. Valero-Cuevas

Free access

Cross-Disciplinary Communication and Evolving Language: A Comment on Latash

Hannah J. Block, Kess L. Folco, Reshma Babu, Manasi Wali, Bashir S. Isa, and Maner Wang

Free access

An Ecological-Dynamical Perspective on Latash’s Misnomers in Motor Control

Raoul M. Bongers, Vitor L.S. Profeta, and Steven J. Harrison

Free access

Exactness as the Universal Currency of Research in Natural Science

Mark L. Latash

Free access

Motor Control Needs to Build More Bridges Across Levels of Analysis

Rajiv Ranganathan, Mei-Hua Lee, and Chandramouli Krishnan

Free access

Recognizing Context, Embracing Jargon, and Learning From Linguists: A Commentary on “Useful and Useless Misnomers in Motor Control”

Bailey Uitz, Mathew Yarossi, and Eugene Tunik

Free access

Reflecting on Emergent Behaviors, Synergies, Stiffness, and Redundancy From a Biomechanics Perspective

Peter J. Keir and Daanish M. Mulla

Free access

Terms Are Tools in Biological Motor Control

Sasha Reschechtko and J. Andrew Pruszynski

Free access

Useful and Useless Misnomers in Motor Control

Mark L. Latash

This article addresses the issue of using terms and concepts in motor control that are ill-defined, undefined, and/or imported from nonbiological fields. In many of such cases, the discourse turns nonscientific and unproductive. Some of such terms are potentially useful but need to be properly and exactly defined. Other terms seem to be misleading and nonfixable. There is also an intermediate group with terms that may or may not be useful if defined properly. The paper presents three examples per group: “reflex,” “synergy,” and “posture” versus “motor program,” “efference copy,” and “internal model” versus “muscle tone,” “stiffness and impedance,” and “redundancy.” These terms are analyzed assuming that motor control is a branch of natural science, which must be analyzed using laws of nature, not a subfield of the control theory. In the discussion, we also accept the framework of the theory of movement control with spatial referent coordinates as the only example built on laws of nature with clearly formulated physical and physiological nature of the control parameters.