4.5 Article

DISTINCT DIGIT KINEMATICS BY PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR PIANISTS

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 284, 期 -, 页码 643-652

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.10.041

关键词

covariation; dynamic movement; fine motor control; independent finger movement; multi-digit coordination; long-term training

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS027484-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many everyday tasks such as typing, grasping, and object manipulation require coordination of dynamic movement across multiple joints and digits. Playing a musical instrument is also one such task where the precise movement of multiple digits is transformed into specific sounds defined by the instrument. Through extensive practice musicians are able to produce precisely controlled movements to interact with the instrument and produce specific sequences of sounds. The present study aimed to determine what aspects of these dynamic movement patterns differ between pianists who have achieved professional status compared to amateur pianists that have also trained extensively. Common patterns of movement for each digit strike were observed for both professional and amateur pianists that were sequence specific, i.e. influenced by the digit performing the preceding strike. However, group differences were found in multi-digit movement patterns for sequences involving the ring or little finger. In some sequences, amateur subjects tended to work against the innate connectivity between digits while professionals allowed slight movement at non-striking digits (covariation) which was a more economical strategy. In other sequences professionals used more individuated finger movements for performance. Thus the present study provided evidence in favor of enhancement of both movement covariation and individuation across fingers in more skilled musicians, depending on fingering and movement sequence. (C) 2014 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据