54 15 28 2009 15 1,2 3 3) 3) Tomohiro Noda 1,2, Masao Asaoka 3, Kiyonao Hasegawa 3 and Sawao Kato 3 : Effects of differences in methods of presenting visual information on the understanding of movement processes: Observation of movements in apparatus gymnastics. Japan J. Phys. Educ. Hlth. Sport Sci., 54: 15 28, June, 2009. Abstract : The purpose of the study was to elucidate the extent to which observers are able to grasp objective movement processes, while observing a visual presentation of movement using a horizontal bar. We presented movements to third-year elementary school students and first-year junior high school students using two presentation methods, specifically sequential photographs and video clips, and subsequently asked the subjects to reenact the movement processes using paper dolls. The following results were obtained. 1. Mean scores for the task were significantly higher in the third-year elementary school students than in the first-year junior high school students. This suggests that the ability to understand movement processes improves with age. 2. Among third-year elementary school students, mean scores for the task were significantly higher for students who were shown video clips than for those shown sequential photographs, whereas no significant differences were observed among first-year junior high school students. This suggests that video clips are a more effective presentation method for early elementary school students. 3. Mean scores for movements with complex movement structures were low for both presentation methods. Further consideration about presentation of complex movements may be necessary. 4. Experience of playing sports in elementary school was identified as a factor influencing mean scores for the task. Students who had experience of sports and watching movements while playing sports were thought to be more capable of understanding movement processes even when watching them for the first time. Key words : motor learning, observation of human movement, video clip, sequential photographs I 1981, p. 375 1 783 8505 2 305 8574 1 1 1 3 305 8574 1 1 1 1. Kochi Medical School, Kochi University Kohasu Oko-cho, Nankoku-shi, Kochi 783 8505 2. University of Tsukuba, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Science, Doctoral Program in Coaching Science 1 1 1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305 8574 3. University of Tsukuba, Institute of Health and Sport Science 1 1 1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305 8574 Corresponding author nodat@kochi-u.ac.jp
, 1976, p. 14 1970 8 DVD 2001 6 1975 2006 2006 II 2008 16
17 6 1 3-6 1 3 5 1 1 360 A 1 3 2 1 2, 2006 2 3 1 2 3
18 III 1., 1994 1992 2 2, 2008 3 1 2., 2008 6 1 8 3 1 1 3. 1 3 3 3
提示法の違いが運動経過の把握に与える影響 図1 19 被験者に提示した連続写真 上から①逆上がり ②振り上がり ③け上がりである それぞれカラー画像とし てディスプレイに提示した れらの関節が水平面上で自由に動く紙人形を作成 した 人形の動きを撮影する必要があることから 被験者の手指が人形を覆い隠すことがないよう 保護用の透明フィルムを胴体と脚部の背面方向に 延長して垂直に折り曲げ ツマミ とした 被験 者は 図 2 のようにこの ツマミ 部分を指で挟 んで人形を動かし 観察した技の運動経過を台紙 の平面上に再現することができる 4. 被験者 野田ほか 2008 によると 連続写真と動画の 図 2 作成した紙人形を動かす被験者 中 1 の A 群に配 識別課題の正答率は 小 1 から小 3 までは急激に 置した被験者が動かす紙人形を真上から撮影した静止 上昇し その後は学年の進行にともなって 徐々 画 ビデオカメラはキットスタンドに専用アタッチメン に向上することが示されている この結果は 小 トで固定され 頭越しに紙人形を撮影している 1 から小 3 までの発達にともなう神経生理学的な 機能の成熟から影響を受けたものと推察されてい
20 1 3 A 33 3 30 15 15 B 31 1 30 15 15 2007/6/7 7/28 1 A 30 0 30 15 15 B 30 0 30 15 15 2007/7/17 7/25 124 4 120 60 60 3 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 1 124 1 3 1 A B 2 A B 3 4 3 4 30 5. 2007 6 7 7 28 1 19 1 A 5 B 1 2 3 3 1
21 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 1 3 4 5 7 A 30 10 30 30 1 5 2 10 B 4.33 A 1 5 1 2 3 6 6.
22 3 1234 1 1, 1976, p. 48, 1984 3 1 4 3 1 4, 1976, p. 177, 1976, p. 177, 1976, p. 193 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 5 20 7. 2 3 3 Bonferroni SPSS 15.0 5% IV
23 4 N 3 A 30 12.00 3.62 14.50 3.95 10.57 2.79 12.36 3.80 B 30 14.27 1.95 17.53 1.74 12.79 3.61 14.92 3.17 1 A 30 15.93 2.56 18.40 2.33 16.47 2.73 16.93 2.72 B 30 16.53 2.22 17.67 1.58 15.93 2.65 16.71 2.28 5 F df p 74.83 1, 116 *** 10.15 1, 116 ** 14.36 1, 116 *** 58.78 2, 232 *** 8.49 2, 232 *** 0.36 2, 232 0.70 1.62 2, 232 0.20 11.72 1, 116 ** 0.71 1, 116 0.40 0.29 1, 116 0.59 3 4 *: p 0.05, n.s.; not significant 58.34 2, 232 *** 3.14 2, 232 * A 0.12 2, 232 0.89 B 3.33 2, 232 * 1 A B *; p 0.05, **; p 0.01, ***; p 0.001 3 4 2 5 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 > > 1 > 4 1
24 4 1 *; p 0.05, n.s.; not significant 6 *; p 0.05, n.s.; not significant 6 5 V 5 *; p 0.05 3 5 5 1. 1 5 1 3 3 1 2
25, 2007 3 1 4 3 > > 2 1 4 2. 2 3 A B 1 3 2, 2008 working memory 1 6 12, 2000 3 1, 1989 1, 1990 3. 3, 2008
26 3 5 3 2 1 3 : 4 5 1981, p. 141, 2006 6 1 6, 2008 1976, p. 280, 1987 VI 2 3 1 124
27 2 1. 3 1 2. 3 B A 1 A B 3 1 3. 3 > > 1 > 4. 1 1 4 2, 1990;, 2006, 2006, p.32, 2006, p.33 1
28, 1984 1990, p. 260 1975, pp. 3 69 2006, pp. 817 818 2000, p. 306 1976 1984, pp. 328 333 1987, 10: 113 124 1970, 20(4): 209 211 1981 2006, p. 46 2007, 648: 48 56 2008, 53: 111 122 2006, p. 95 1989, 2: 35 44 2006, p. 81 2006 1990, 3: 27 38 2001, 14: 15 25 2006, p. 131 1992 4 73 82 1994, 2: 69 78 20 3 6 20 11 5