See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312519120

A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidt

Article in Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences · March 2016

DOI: 10.5604/17310652.1226481

CITATIONS READS

0 1,304

1 author:

Waclaw Petrynski
Górnośląska Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa im. Wojciecha Korfantego w Katowicach
19 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

motor control in humans View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Waclaw Petrynski on 06 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Antropomotoryka. Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences
JKES 73 (26): 11-24, 2016

SECTION – FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED KINESIOLOGY

ICID: 1226481 (1.1) DOI: 10.5604/17310652.1226481

A SCIENTIFIC EVENING WITH

N.A. BERNSTEIN AND R.A. SCHMIDT

Authors’ contribution: Wacław Petryński

A. Study design/planning
B. Data collection/entry
C. Data analysis/statistics
D. Data interpretation Katowice School of Economics
E. Preparation of manuscript Katowice, Poland
F. Literature analysis/search
G. Funds collection

Key words: “brain skyscraper”, schema theory, “modalities ladder”, conceptual

model of motor performance, conceptual organization of human motor operation

The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and
opens up new lines of research.
Paul Dirac

Abstract
The author presents the conceptual organization of human motor operation based mainly on Bernstein’s and Schmidt’s ideas. Bern-
stein invented the revolutionary five-level movement construction system, based on evolutionary and neurophysiological data. Schmidt is
the author of the conceptual model of human motor performance, no doubt the most popular – all over the world – the graphic representa-
tion of mechanisms underlying human motor behaviour. This paper presents an attempt at joining both the concepts.
Joining M1, M2, triggered and M3 responses with the five-level movement construction system (termed by Bernstein “brain
skyscraper”) enables modification of the very illustrative and instructive Schmidt conceptual model of a motor operation. While
analysing it from the perspective of Bernstein’s “brain skyscraper”, and especially its functional version, the “modalities ladder”,
one might create a slightly reformed diagram depicting the relations between particular mechanisms underlying human motor
behaviour.
Moreover, while analysing the achievements of Bernstein and Schmidt, it becomes possible to discover how many common
elements may be found in the ideas of both of these Giants.

Introduction patterns (schemas) and the already mentioned graph.

Following the concept borrowed from novelist P. Barz
(Possible meeting – Händel und Bach) let us imagine
a scientific evening with two Giants in motor control:
N.A. Bernstein (1896-1966), founder of physiology of
-
In 1975 he termed it “the motor response schema” [4].
In 1988 next version of this graph he described as “the
expanded closed-loop model for movement control” and
“flow diagram showing critical elements in a movement
performance from the point of view of schema theory”

activity, and R.A. Schmidt (1941-2015), who created the [5]. In 2008, in the book written along with C.A. Wris-
schema theory and authored probably the most known berg, the more developed version of this graph has been
graph showing conceptual flow of information during labelled “the conceptual model of motor performance”
-

a motor operation in human. [6]. In 2011, in the book co-authored by T.D. Lee, still
From N.A. Bernstein let us take his five-level move- more developed version is described as “expanded con-
-

ments’ construction system (“brain skyscraper”) [1, 2, ceptual model of closed-loop process” [7]. As it can be
3]; from Schmidt – the pre-prepared motor behaviour seen, Schmidt developed his graph incessantly, hence
-

Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences 11

-

attempt at its modification seems to be coherent rather,
and not contradictory to his modus operandi.
This graph is probably Schmidt’s best known achieve-
ment. Paradoxically enough, though he in general declared
a behavioural (not behaviouristic!) approach, just the con-
ceptual model, resulting from theoretical speculations
and not from observation of human behaviour, contributes
at most to students’ understanding of the mechanisms
underlying human motor activity.
In fact, the concepts by Bernstein and Schmidt are
coherent with each other. So, let us join Schmidt’s par-
ticular motor responses with Bernstein’s movement
construction levels, which he termed “brain skyscraper”
(BS). Additionally, let us compare them with the achieve-
ments of I.P. Pavlov (Tab. 1).
Table 1. Selected aspects of Bernstein’s, Schmidt’s and Pavlov’s concepts in motor control
Neural sub- Bernstein’s
Motor ability
system brain skyscraper
Strength Sub-cortical, A
Pyramidal Speed Sub-cortical, B
C1; Agility
Half-cortical, C
(sub-cortical C1,
C2: Dexterity cortical C2)
Extra-pyramidal Motor common
Cortical, D
reason
Motor fantasy Cortical, E
The terms “unconditioned reflex” and “conditioned
reflex” are commonly known, but the term “conditional-
ly-conditioned reflex” – is not. It resulted from a desper-
ate attempt at saving the reflex theory in regions where it
cannot be effective. In fact, “unconditioned reflex” works
well only in the lowest, rubro-spinal level of the neural
system. “Conditioned reflex” (thalamo-pallidal) is, in
fact, not “pure reflex”, and the “conditionally-conditioned
reflex” (cortical, pyramidal and striatal) – i.e., a new con-
ditioned reflex related to the earlier formed conditioned
reflex – was invented not by Pavlov himself, but by his
disciple A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky [8]. Essentially, it can-
not be termed “reflex” at all. Still earlier A.A. Ukhtom-
sky, who highly valued Pavlov, invented the concept of
“dominant” [9], to endow the whole reflex mechanism,
-
purely reactive by its nature, with some intentionality. In
fact, the reflex theory was coherent with the Soviet ideol-
ogy, in which a citizen should react to stimuli and not
-
display one’s own invention. However, the terms uncon-
ditioned, conditioned and conditionally-conditioned re-
-
flex are nowadays obviously obsolete, and in this paper,
the terms “reflex”, “automatism” and “habit” are used,
-
12
-
Wacław Petryński
respectively. It is not merely a matter of terminology, but
they differ qualitatively from Pavlov’s terms in spirit of
Bernstein’s philosophy. In short, Pavlov’s reflexes are
in general deprived of intentionality, whereas an active
anticipation makes a basic component of Bernstein’s
concept. Unlike in Pavlov’s theory, even the simplest
Bernstein’s reflex is clearly directed towards future.
The confrontation of Pavlov’s, Bernstein’s and
Schmidt’s concepts evokes rather melancholic reflec-
tion. The ideas by Bernstein and Pavlov were essen-
tially non-contradictory to each other; the former might
be interpreted as an extension of the latter. If there was
no political intervention into science, Russian motor
control would have probably taken a leading position
in the world. Unfortunately, in Soviet Russia, Pavlov’s
Schmidt’s Pavlov’s Pavlov’s
category terminology categorization
Unconditioned
M1
reflex
M2 Conditioned reflex
First signaling
system
Conditionally-con-
Triggered response
ditioned reflex
M3 - Second signaling
system
- -
theory has been acknowledged as “the only right”,
and Bernstein’s concept was labelled “dissident” and
doomed to be forgotten [10, 11]. Fortunately, this was
not successful.
Bernstein’s concept was systemic in its nature, co-
herent with the general theory of systems published by
L. von Bertalanffy [12] in 1968, over twenty years later
than Bernstein’s “On construction of movements” [1].
Still earlier, in the fifties’ of the 20th century, P.K. Anokhin
– probably the most outstanding disciple of Pavlov –
presented a systemic perspective of human movements
construction [13]. Essentially, it was coherent with that
of Bernstein. It was denounced as heresy and he was
severely punished by the Soviet scientific establishment.
Symptomatically, the scientific witch-hunt already began
in the Soviet Union after death of Pavlov. He himself was
a very authoritarian person, indeed, but at the same time,
he was open-minded and able – more or less reluctantly
– to admit that his opponent was right. Bernstein wrote
a discussion of Pavlov’s views, but when it was ready to
be printed, Pavlov died and Bernstein decided not to pub-
lish it. The book (“Contemporary researches into physi-
Antropomotoryka
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti
ology of neural process”), regarded as lost for many
years, has been finally published only in 2003 [14].
It is also worth noting that the theory of systems had
already been conceived in twenties of the 20th century
by the Soviet scientist A.A. Bogdanov, who termed his
concept “tektology” [15].
Bernstein and Pavlov were physiologists, whereas
Schmidt – a physical culture specialist and active athlete
[16]. The concepts of M1, M2 and M3 motor responses
were taken by him from D.J. Dewhurst [17], the concept
of triggered response – from P.E. Crago, J.C. Houk and Z.
Hasan [18]. So, if two different perspectives are coher-
ent with each other, then the probability that the concept
may be wrong becomes lower.
Tab. 1 still requires another comment. Each and ev-
ery theory is always a simplification and has a limited
scope of applicability [19]. Many problems of science
– as a whole – result from attempts at applying the com-
monly acknowledged theories in regions where they are
not applicable. So, as the popular adage states, “the
greatness of a scientist may be measured with the period
of time, for which s/he was able to inhibit the progress
in science”. Such an elusive limit of applicability is not
visible from the level of experiments. So, if an empiri-
cist goes beyond such a limit, s/he usually triumphantly
heralds that s/he “just debunked a theory”, which is evi-
dently wrong. Sometimes the old theory needs rejecting,
indeed, but even in such a situation – as it was said by
W. Dooley – “new ideas sprout from cracks in the old”.
This is especially important in motor control, the main
mechanisms of which remain beyond the reach of em-
pirical studies and may be accessible only by interpreta-
tion and speculation.
While developing a new theory, which inevitably has
to be by far more elusive than “hard” experimental re-
sults, it is necessary to use the already existing ones
and to “bend” them while adjusting to new concepts.
Hence, no theory may be regarded as an “unshakable
monument”. It seems obvious, too, that different theo-
ries cannot match each other perfectly; in this respect,
some intellectual flexibility is absolutely necessary. This
is why in this paper, while comparing two theories, the
word “roughly” is used. R.A. Schmidt argued that:
Since laws are the product of human creativity, different laws can
be formulated by two different individuals who are examining the
same observations. Laws do not automatically spring forth from
the facts [5].
-
Thus, as K. Lorenz stated, “truth in science can be
defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open
-
the way to the next better one”. In other words, to make
scientific progress, it is necessary to balance the already
-
acknowledged truths and new working hypotheses,
sometimes very daringly.
-
Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences
-
The concepts by Bernstein and Pavlov may be re-
garded as neurophysiological, Schmidt’s model opens
the way towards functional interpretation of mechanisms
underlying human motor behaviour. Such a functional in-
terpretation has to be firmly rooted in neurophysiological
and psychological knowledge, but to gain easy compre-
hensibility, it has to “filter” only the “tangibly operative” as-
pects of the whole motor control system in humans. The
functional concept rooted in Bernstein’s BS was created
by Petryński [20] and termed “modalities ladder” (ML).
Some selected components of it are shown in Tab. 2.
A creature endowed with only A-level abilities would
be senseless; evolutionary, sensitivity has arisen as a re-
sult of contact with the environment. Nevertheless, for
such a hypothetical being, its own organism would be
the whole universe. For B-level creatures, its own body
comprises the centre of the universe. The C-level crea-
ture discovers that it is neither the whole universe, nor its
centre, but rather a part of it.
The contactceptive B-level controls the motor opera-
tions which might be performed directly with one’s own
motor organs (in humans mainly extremities). So, at that
level, we are dealing with either real or virtual motor op-
eration which is or may be performed in the portion of
space physically accessible to one’s own body. In this
respect, the following fragment from Bernstein’s book is
highly instructive:
It is interesting to note that the reflex loop in primitive animals
... works quite differently from how it functions in us. Consider
a worm that crawls to an obstacle or a snail that reaches the tip
of a grass blade. When there are complications of this kind, these
animals start rather animated, aimless searching movements in
all directions. In the more highly developed neokinetic animals,
movements follow sensations; that is, movements are directed
and controlled by sensations. In the lower animals the opposite
is true; sensations are served and provided by movements [2, 3].
Here, the word “neokinetic” was used. From the ML
perspective, the term “paleokinetic” means creatures
whose behaviour is mainly guided by extrinsic stimuli
(reactive behaviour). On the other hand, the “neokinetic”
animals, including humans, control their behaviour with
internal representation of the external world (active be-
haviour), where the operating anticipation plays a cru-
cial part. More precise descriptions of this issue may be
found in [21].
The categorization presented in Tab. 2 enables clear
differentiation of the terms “agility” and “dexterity”. The
former denotes efficient moving of the whole body in the
three dimensional (and a small fraction of the fourth one,
i.e., the time axis) space, whereas the latter – the precise
spatial and temporal control of working organs move-
ments. The C1 agility may be controlled by sub-cortical
centres, whereas the more complex C2 dexterity needs
engagement of cortical ones.
13
 Wacław Petryński

Table 2. Selected components of the modalities ladder

“Rung” of the Motor

Information
modalities Motor ability Motor operation operation Operation mode
processing
ladder pattern
Basic musculo-skeletal
Continuous static
A0 stifness, “background of Muscle tonus Posture keeping
muscle control
all backgrounds” Proprioceptive
Strength, “feeling-in- Reflex
A Coupling Moving about
hand’ (M1)
Speed, movements’ Contactceptive Automatism
B Template Technique
harmony (mainly haptic) (M2)
Agility,
C1
“measure by eye” Teleceptive (mainly Habit
Scenario Tactics
Dexterity, “measure by visual) (Triggered response)
C2
eye”
Performance
D Motor common reason Verbal Programme Strategy
(M3)
E Motor fantasy Symbolic No real operation Idea Politics

While looking from the ML perspective, it is neces-
sary to call Bernstein’s concept into question, stating
that C-level bases on geometry [22]. “Primeval” ge-
ometry consists of real metric relations between sub-
jects and their abstract, formal description. Along with
the passage of time, the latter became independent and
nowadays, some fields of geometry are completely de-
tached from reality.
However, the C-level – specific also to animals – in-
cludes only the observable metric relations and not their
formal description which makes up the very essence
of geometry. So, in ML, the C-level “sensory” ability is
termed “measure-by-eye”. Strict geometry, with its fully
abstract “soul”, appears only at D-level. It quite faithfully
mirrors the reality. Rejection of metrics leads to appear-
ance of topology, specific to Bernstein’s E-level, though
he originally assigned it also to D-level [22]. ML differs
from Bernstein’s original BS in distinction between A0
(posture keeping, “directed inwards”) and A (strength
and movement production, “directed outwards”) lev-
els, as well as a slightly different view on the function of
“measure-by-eye”, geometry and topology at C-, D- and
E-levels, respectively.
Schmidt did not refer to Bernstein’s BS [1, 2, 3]
or Anokhin concepts [13]. In the West, the name of
Nikolai Alexandrovich was (and still is) mainly associ-
ated with the degrees of freedom reduction, and not
-
movements construction system as an ordering factor.
Let us term it “the conceptual organization of human
motor operation.”
M1 motor response
In the ML concept, the M1 response might be re-
garded as an observable “signature” of the A level of
the neural system in production of a movement. It may
be illustrated as in Fig. 1. In this and all other figures,
a double line marks the sensory path, a dotted line – the
metasensory (though sometimes rooted in sensory ex-
periences) information processing, a solid line – the sen-
sory organs relation to each other. White blocks symbol-
ize the mind (psychology), a dotted block – the actuators
and sensory organs (physiology), dark grey blocks – the
environment (physics).
The biological processes are hardly liable to mathe-
matical description, indeed, but nonetheless, they have
to obey the laws of “easily mathematizable” physics. In
nature, each and every process has to be initiated by
some kind of disequilibrium. In Fig. 1, the block “PDS”
symbolizes “Proprioceptive Disequilibrium Sensor”,
which discovers the disequilibrium of proprioceptive
modality and “defines” the specific motor task to be
solved.
It is worth noting that just introduction of the notion

with the five-level movements construction system. of multimodality leads to invention of an information pro-
Moreover, Schmidt’s conceptual model – very illustra- cessing mechanism (and logic, as well) specific to a giv-
tive and thus, no doubt, the most popular all over the en “rung” of the ML (or “floor” of BS). In this respect,
-

world – is coherent also with that of Anokhin. So, let the statement by A.R. Damasio – who did not refer to
us join the achievements of Bernstein and Schmidt and Bernstein’s BS – that “each sensory system appears
-

try to invent an equally illustrative diagram like that of equipped to provide its own local attention and working-
Schmidt, yet taking into account Bernstein’s five-level memory devices” [23] also sounds instructively.
-

14 Antropomotoryka
-
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti

According to the functional philosophy presented in

3URSULRFHSWLYH this paper, we do not relate this (and others, as well)
0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP illustration to the neural system, though the conceptual
FRXSOLQJ organization of human motor operation is firmly rooted in
0 the evolutionary and neurophysiological knowledge. The
latter remains somewhere in the background, but for the
0XVFOHV sake of necessary simplifications, it is not being anal-
ysed along with motor control conceptual structures. The
M1 response may be identified – roughly – with reflex,
and in the ML concept, it is “responsible” for one-dimen-
02725 3'6 sional muscle contraction, i.e., for muscle tonus neces-
23(5$7,21 sary for posture keeping – especially in creatures with
an internal skeleton, and all the more bipeds – and for
(19,5210(17 exerting the force against other objects. In popular lan-
5($&7,21 guage, the former might be described as “keeping a stiff
$FWXDOVWDWH
upper lip”, whereas the latter – as “feeling-in-hand”. In
3URSULR the ML concept, the A-level ability responsible for sheer
FHSWRUV muscle tonus is denoted with the symbol “A0”, and that
evoking muscle contraction bringing about strength and
movement – with the symbol “A” [20]. It controls simple
Figure 1. The M1 response. PDS – proprioceptive disequilibrium
movements of body parts.
sensor It is worth noting that the term “strength” has been
used here as a biological counterpart of physical “force”.
In short, strength means biological ability to develop
7DFWLOH a physical force. The difference is that the former results
GLVHTXLOLEULXP from neural information processing, and the latter does
0RWRU
not include any processing. This is why a biological “re-
WHPSODWH 0 sponse” is not the same as a physical “reaction”.
3URSULRFHSWLYH
GLVHTXLOLEULXP M2 response
0RWRU
FRXSOLQJ 0 The M2 response is more complicated and therefore,
carried out with a more complex information process-
ing procedure (and thus, inevitably, controlled by higher
0XVFOHV neural centres). It has been shown in Fig. 2.
The M1 response (reflex in ML) is of mainly (yet
7'6 not entirely) inherited nature. The primeval structure
02725 of M1 reflexes makes the “basic motor tool-kit”, spe-
23(5$7,21 cific for the whole Homo sapiens species, which on
3'6 its basis enables the creation of more advanced and
individualized motor operations. On the other hand, the
(19,5210(17 M2 response (automatism in ML) has to be developed
5($&7,21 by an individual and uses higher, more matured neural
$FWXDOVWDWH centres.
3URSULR In the ML perspective, the M2 response produces
FHSWRUV movement harmony. It may solve more complex motor
tasks, indeed, but at the same time, it operates slower.
By the way: in the whole ML structure one may observe
-

&RQWDFW a clear trade-off: speed for complexity and adjustability.

It seems worth remembering that ML is simplified
-

FHSWRUV
as compared to BS; it mainly “distils” the functional as-
pects of Bernstein’s concept. In ML structure, the M2 re-
-

Figure 2. The M2 response. The “TDS” block symbolizes “Tactile sponse controls a two-dimensional movement in a joint.
Disequilibrium Sensor” It does not need any visual control, hence it is decisive
-

Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences 15

-
 Wacław Petryński

for technique (e.g., ball bouncing, operating pedals un-

der the dashboard in a car, etc.). 0RWRU 9LVXDOGLVHTXLOLEULXP
Also of significance is that in Fig. 2, the M1 circle VFHQDULR 75
works inside the M2 loop. This means that, while seen 7DFWLOH
from the functional perspective, the former has to work 0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP
swifter than the latter. So, M2 automatism may include WHPSODWH
0
(and control) several M1 reflexes. In Fig. 1 this is sym-
3URSULRFHSWLYH
bolized by the higher position of the “Motor template” GLVHTXLOLEULXP
0RWRU
than the “Motor coupling” block. FRXSOLQJ 0

Triggered response
0XVFOHV
The triggered response is still more complicated 9'6
(and versatile) and thus, it needs more complex informa-
tion processing than M2 (Fig. 3). In the ML perspective, 02725
7'6
the triggered response corresponds to motor habit. It is 23(5$7,21
worth noting that Bernstein termed the C-level (corre-
sponding to TR) “half-cortical” [1], i.e., engaging both 3'6
(19,5210(17
sub-cortical and cortical brain centres. 5($&7,21
It is qualitatively different from M1 and M2. This is why $FWXDOVWDWH
the systemic approach significantly differs from the reflex 3URSULR
approach. The former (“Bernstein’s philosophy”) uses FHSWRUV
several qualitatively different modalities, whereas the latter
(“Pavlov’s philosophy”) essentially includes the shorter or &RQWDFW
longer information processing chains of the same modality. FHSWRUV
The term “triggered” suggests that the motor be-
haviour pattern is already pre-prepared and needs only 7HOH
a “Go!” signal to start its execution. So in this case, the FHSWRUV
motor behaviour pattern might be compared to a ten-
sioned spring which only needs releasing to act. K ³ 6´ EO N E OL ³ L O L
In Dewhurst’s experiment, the particular bursts on an Figure 3. The triggered response (TR). The “VDS” block symbolizes
EMG graph were recorded in individuals who were not “Visual Disequilibrium Sensor”
endowed with such a mental “tensioned spring”; conse-
quently, he was not able to discover the triggered response.
However, if a specific motor operation pattern has been pre- [24] – to the latter. Such an analogy with both neuro-
viously formed, then it may manifest itself somewhere be- physiology (two neural paths, ventral and dorsal) [25],
tween the M2 and M3 responses. This is just the triggered as well as sensory organ structure (distribution of rods
response discovered by Crago, Houk and Hasan [18]. It is and cones on the retina of human eye) is fully coherent
worth noting that the TR circle works outside of M1 and M2 with the idea of Bernstein’s C1 and C2 sub-levels. Dor-
ones. So, it may manage both the M1 and M2 responses, sal path and rods are responsible for space orientation
but they have to work more swiftly than the TR. (where?), whereas ventral path and cones – for precise
The presented conceptual organization of human identification (what?) [26]. Accordingly, the former may
motor operation bases on linking the M1 response (re- be joined mainly with whole-body agility, the latter – with
flex) to the A-level, M2 response (automatism) to the the working organs’ dexterity. In this respect, the con-
B-level, triggered response (habit) to the C-level, and ceptual structure of ML is fully coherent with the physi-
M3 response (performance) to the D-level. Some modi- ological structure of animals and humans.
fications of meanings of these notions are necessary, Motor scenario can manage quite complex motor op-
indeed, but they bring about some theoretical unification eration. Let us exemplify it with such a situation. A driver
-

which more than compensates such an intellectual sac- sees a cyclist in front of his/her car and another vehicle
rifice. However – according to the ML philosophy – if we coming from the opposite direction. There are three po-
-

join agility (general movements of the whole body) to the tential possibilities:
C1-level, and dexterity (precise movements of the work- 1. The other car is far enough to overtake the cyclist
-

ing parts of the body) to the C2 level, then the ambient and return back to its own lane before passing the
vision may be assigned to the former, and focal vision other car.
-

16 Antropomotoryka
-
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti
2. The road is wide enough to overtake the cyclist even
while passing the other car.
3. The road is narrow and the other car is close, so the
driver has to slow down to let the other car pass, and
only then to overtake the cyclist.
In an experienced driver, the whole – quite complex –
spatial-temporal information processing runs exclusively
in visual mode, specific to C-level habit. The driver may
even not interrupt the D-level verbal ongoing conversa-
tion with a passenger.
Such a potentiality results from Bernstein’s “lower
level development rule” [1, 2, 3, 20]. Here, the crucial
word is “experienced”. Such a complex motor behaviour
has to be worked out at a higher level (in the example
presented above – at the “common sense” D-level) and
then “pushed down” as a ready motor behaviour pattern
– to a lower one (in this example – to “measure-by-eye”
C-level). In this case, the following statement by the race
driver B. Collins (mysterious Stig from the BBC broad-
cast “Top Gear”) sounds illustratively:
What defines a good driver? What attribute is necessary, and
what merely useful?
The anticipation. A racing driver is a person, who does not look
for solutions of the problems that occur in a race. S/he knows
those solutions, and when the situation comes, when the reaction
becomes necessary, s/he simply performs the operations leading
to its successful solving [27; transl. WP].
However, in case of emergency, the “slow and clum-
sy” D-level word may block several “quick and agile”
C-level information chunks. It is termed “information-
processing bottleneck” [6]. This is why while talking on
a mobile phone, essentially, it is not important whether
a driver uses a hand-free device (which is allowed) or
not (which is not allowed), especially in cars with power
steering and automatic gearboxes. The problem is in the
head, and not in the hand [28].
M3 response
The M3 response (Fig. 4) requires by far more com-
plex information processing. Especially anticipation,
reaching far beyond the temporal frames of any stimuli
received by sensory organs. In short, unlike sensory A-
B- and C-level codes, information processing at D-level
is, in general, of metasensory nature. To dot the i’s and
cross the t’s, in the ML perspective, the highest E-level –
-
which does not control any real motor operation – uses
a transcendental modality.
The M1, M2 and M3 responses were discovered on
-
the basis of an experiment by Dewhurst [17]. A subject
had to support several books with his/her hand bent at
-
a certain angle. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the load was
increased. Then, three subsequent bursts in EMG were
-
Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences
-
recorded, corresponding to M1, M2 and M3 responses.
Later, Crago, Houk and Hasan discovered one more,
TR response, positioned between the M2 and M3 ones.
The following latencies have been assigned to particular
kinds of motor responses [7]:
• M1 response (monosynaptic stretch reflex) – 30 to
50 ms;
• M2 response (polysynaptic stretch reflex) – 50 to 80
ms;
• Triggered response (coordinated response) – 80 to
120 ms;
• M3 response (voluntary response) – 120 to 180 ms.
According to the ML concept, each of them uses
different information processing modalities. However, if
a given operation is not controlled visually, the C-level TR
does not work. The same, all the more, concerns the D-
level M3 response. So, Dewhurst’s experiment actually
works only on A- and B-levels, hence the higher EMG
bursts represent sheer perception of an event at a giv-
en level and not full information processing. If we then
take the particular EMG bursts as specific “signatures”
of various ML levels, one may draw only the following
conclusions:
• The CNS disposes of several separate mechanisms
– yet making a single, coherent system – controlling
motor operations;
• The particular mechanisms work at different rates;
• The more profound the information processing, the
more the flexibility and longer the latency.
However, the assigning of any specific value of la-
tency to the level that does not work in a given motor
operation would be an over-interpretation.
The blocks “Motor programme” and “Response or-
ganization” need a comment. The former defines, what
to do, whereas the latter how to do it, i.e., how to attune
the proper scenarios, templates and couplings to effi-
ciently solve a given motor task.
Information processing in the M3 response has to be
completely detached from current sensory experiences.
Thanks to that, a motor programme may reach far into
past and future, beyond the sensory “timing”. Just the
ability to far-reaching and accurate anticipation makes
Homo sapiens the most dangerous predator on Earth.
In Fig. 4, there are three horizontal, “sensory” dot-
ted lines at the level of proprioceptors, contactceptors
and teleceptors. They symbolize the recording of sen-
sory experiences as memory traces (engrams) of mental
modalities specific to them. For example, if an individual
had a severe burn, s/he remembers it, indeed, but while
thinking about that accident, s/he no longer feels any
physiological pain. So, the purely sensory experience
has been engrained in the memory – and may be pro-
cessed – in other modalities rooted in sensory experi-
ences, indeed, but not identical with them.
17
 Wacław Petryński


 'LVHTXLOLEULXP 0XOWLPRGDOYLUWXDOGLVHTXLOLEULXP
 DVVHVVPHQW
0

'LVHTXLOLEULXP
 DQDO\VLV
 0RWRU
SURJUDPPH

5HVSRQVH
 RUJDQL]DWLRQ
'HVLUHGVWDWH ,QWHQGHGRXWFRPHDQG
 &RPSDUDWRU
DQWLFLSDWHGIHHGEDFN

0RWRU 9LVXDOGLVHTXLOLEULXP
 VFHQDULR
75
7DFWLOH $FWXDOVWDWH

0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP
 WHPSODWH
0
 3URSULRFHSWLYH
0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP

FRXSOLQJ
0


,QWULQVLFIHHGEDFN
 0XVFOHV
 9'6

 02725
7'6
23(5$7,21

 (19,5210(17 3'6

 5($&7,21
$FWXDOVWDWH
 3URSULR
 FHSWRUV


&RQWDFW
 FHSWRUV

7HOH
 FHSWRUV


Figure 4. The M1, M2, TR and M3 responses. The conceptual organization of human motor operation

From Fig. 4, one might learn that a higher motor ground – in feedforward mode. Accordingly, to make
behaviour pattern may control several lower level ones. the whole motor operation effective, the background
-

For example, one habit may include many automatisms sub-operations have to be mastered so perfectly as to
and still more couplings. According to Bernstein [1, 2, enable reliable usage of the feedforward – i.e., “atten-
3], the attention of a human who performs that well tionless” – mode.
-

mastered operation is focused only on the highest con- The application of metasensory verbal code, immune
trol level (“chief”). The lower levels make up the “back- to time passage and enabling very profound information
-

ground” and do not need attention. In other words, the processing – leading to far-reaching, accurate anticipa-
“chief” works in feedback mode, whereas the back- tion – results in the appearance of the “Comparator”
-

18 Antropomotoryka
-
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti
block. It may be regarded as a much more developed
version of the disequilibrium sensor. The latter bases on
sensory experiences, coming from the real world, only
superficially “filtered” by an individual’s mind, whereas
the latter – on mental representation, produced by an
individual’s mind. Hence, the sensor uses a real, sen-
sory disequilibrium, whereas the comparator – a virtual,
metasensory disequilibrium.
The motor programme may be built in an either
“down-up”, or “up-down” way. In the former, at first the
respective “sensory” motor couplings, then motor tem-
plates and motor scenarios are produced. Finally, they
make a “building stuff” for creation of a “metasensory”
motor programme, which – unlike its “sensory” coun-
terparts – goes beyond the limits marked by direct po-
tentialities of sensory organs. Such a “down-up” path
of motor programme creation is typical for children. It
may be traced to, e.g., the works by Bernstein [1, 2, 3],
Vygotsky [29] or Piaget and Inhelder [30]. The “down-
up” path is typical for the specific operation stage as
presented by Piaget and Inhelder.
In the “up-down” path, the realizable D-level mo-
tor programme germinates in the fully fantastic space
of the E-level, free from any physical constraints. The
completely free idea – it may be roughly associated
with Schmidt’s “generalized motor programme” – may
be realizable or not. In its “pure” form it is usually not
realizable. Nonetheless, only such an “up-down” path
enabled, e.g., working out the Fosbury Flop technique in
high jump. To gain the attribute of realizability, the “topo-
logical” movements’ pattern has to be “parameterized”,
as described by Schmidt.
The latter requires a comment. Schmidt, who also
received mathematical education, has illustrated it with
the “phonograph record analogy”. A melody may be re-
produced slower or faster, but nevertheless, it remains
the same melody. However, in the BS and the ML, the
problem seems to be more complicated. Generalized
motor programme and motor programme are not analo-
gous information processing chains executed at different
rates, but they should be assigned to different “rungs”
of the ML. Thus, they differ, first of all, in the modality
of information processing. The longer “temporal scale”
is merely a consequence of different modality applica-
tion. To sum up, in relation to the generalized motor
programme and motor programme, while sticking to the
mathematical metaphor, one might consider “boundary
-
condition” – specific to differential equations – determi-
nation rather than a sheer “parameterization”.
However, mathematics seems to be hardly useful in
-
the description of biological, and – all the more – psy-
chological phenomena. Mathematics does not consider
-
the essence of what it describes, but merely “distils” the
relations between subjects, phenomena and processes.
-
Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences
-
This was illustratively expressed by the outstanding
mathematician R. Penrose, who said:
There are two other words I do not understand – awareness and
intelligence. Well, why am I talking about things when I do not
know what they really mean? It is probably because I am a math-
ematician and mathematicians do not mind so much about that
sort of thing. They do not need precise definitions of the things
they are talking about, provided they can say something about the
connections between them [31].
In biology and psychology, the important element
determining those relations is the information, of both
a species’ and individual’s nature, and of various modali-
ties. Nowadays, it hardly seems possible to “harness” it
with strict mathematical formalism.
The ”up-down” path of motor programme creation
is more “risky” than the “down-up” one, but neverthe-
less, it includes much more inventiveness and may
effectively cover a much more extensive body of mo-
tor tasks. However, it may be employed by individuals
with fully developed E-level, which corresponds to the
formal operation stage as described by Piaget and In-
helder [30].
Let us assume that the information processing chain
in a motor operation consisting of the following links
(their technological counterparts in brackets):
1. Sensitivity (transducers);
2. Perception (detectors);
3. Attention (input filter);
4. Motivation (input discriminator and amplifier);
5. Intellect (processor);
6. Foresight (output filter);
7. Decision (output discriminator and amplifier);
8. Skills (controllers);
9. Efferent copies and corollary discharges (recorder
and predictor);
10. Muscles (actuators) [20].
Accordingly, particular blocks in Fig. 4 may be as-
sociated with the following links:
1. Proprioceptors, contactceptors, teleceptors – sensi-
tivity;
2. Actual state – perception and attention;
3. Sensors, comparator – motivation;
4. Sensors, disequilibrium assessment, disequilibrium
analysis, motor programme, response organization
– intellect, foresight, and decision;
5. Motor programme, motor scenario, motor template,
motor coupling – skills;
6. Desired state, intended outcome – efferent copies,
corollary discharges;
7. Motor operation – muscles.
By the way: the diagram shown in Fig. 4 seems to be
nearly fully coherent with the version of Schmidt’s graph
from 1988 [5]; then he termed it “the expanded closed-
loop model for movement control”.
19

Motor schema and motor schedule
Schmidt applied the notion of schema – evidently
as a result of the heated debate about closed loop and
open loop motor control – because it enabled execution
of a motor operation both quick and complex. In short,
the closed loop may be identified with feedback, and the
open loop – with the feedforward control mode [20]. In
the process of “maturation”, the mental structure being
controlled with the time-consuming feedback mode (let
us term it “schedule”) has to give way – as much as
possible – to the quick and “intellectually cheap” feed-
forward (schema). While using mathematical meta-
phors, the feedforward motor operation pattern might be
compared to an algorithm, whereas the feedback – to the
original, step-by-step solution of a more or less complex
equation. In motor control an excellent example of trans-
formation a schedule into a schema is the Schmidt’s
“gearshift analogy” [5, 7]. It describes the gradual trans-
formation of particular, separate operations with clutch,
gas and lever into one fluent, smooth operation. Such
a process may be also identified with the transformation
of a discrete skill into a serial skill and finally into a con-
tinuous skill [6].
Briefly put, “schematization of a schedule” (“algo-
rithmization”) consists in reduction of the number of
points, where the decision has to be taken to the lowest
possible value. Such points were termed by N.F. Talyzina
[32] and M.M. Bogen [33] “basic resistance points”,
and D. Ungerer named the chain of events between such
points “sensorimotor sequence” [34]. This may be re-
garded as a specific way of Bernstein’s degrees of free-
dom reduction. All these scientists did not present it as
elements of a system in Bernstein terms. The fact that
they are coherent with each other supports the assump-
tion that already existing theories might and should be
joined to build a more extensive image of motor control
as a whole. Moreover, it is no doubt by far more valuable
and effective in science creation than sheer collecting of
“new, original experimental data”.
All the mentioned mechanisms are aimed at lowering
the costs – intellectual and physiological – of a motor
operation. Such a process may be identified with Bern-
stein’s reduction of degrees of freedom. This term has
been borrowed from theoretical mechanics, but in motor
control, it has to be extended to higher levels of BS and
ML. It is worth remembering that nature does not break
records; nature solves tasks, at the lowest possible cost
-
[35]. So, the development of any motor behaviour pat-
tern strives to achieve the lowest possible ML level and
-
to employ the feedforward control mode to as much ex-
tent as possible.
-
Following Schmidt’s way of thinking, let us extend the
intellectual structure termed “schema” to all the modali-
-
20
-
Wacław Petryński
ties. Only two extreme levels have to be excluded. The
A-level reflex is a feedforward motor pattern by nature; in
fact, there are no A-level schedules which may be trans-
formed into schemas. On the other hand, the E-level idea
rejects all physical constraints, so in general, it cannot
manage any real operations; at that level, construction of
the schema is hardly possible. Any manipulation in this
field of human mind – though probably not impossible –
may be associated with ominous “brainwashing”.
Hence, the schema is the feedforward – to as much
extent as possible – internal pattern of motor behaviour,
no matter what is the modality of information process-
ing. For instance, during formation of a scenario, step-
by-step with strict feedback control, the existing motor
pattern should be categorized as a schedule. However,
the same scenario – while already “matured”, performed
without the feedback loop and hence “cheaper” in men-
tal and physiological terms – is no doubt a schema.
Roughly, the schedule – schema transformation may be
associated with the process of passing from feedback
(control) to feedforward (coordination) mode, i.e., elimi-
nation of the former as much as possible.
Nevertheless, if such an operation needs significant
employment of the feedback control mode for any rea-
son, then the respective motor behaviour pattern should
be termed “schedule” (respectively – “closed loop”). It
is worth noting that here, one has to do with a specific
trade-off: the quick schema is rather “stiff”, whereas the
clumsy schedule – highly flexible.
The “matured” schemas are not fixed once and for
all. In case of emergency, a swift, coherent schema
managing the motor operation just being performed
disintegrates [36, 37]. As a result, the operation control
has to “shift” to the clumsy “step-by-step” schedule,
and the whole operation becomes slow, gawky and of-
ten ineffective. This makes up the mechanism of what is
termed “choking” in sport. In such activities like, e.g.,
car driving, such phenomena may have dangerous con-
sequences.
Motor operation teaching
The D-level verbal code enables recording knowl-
edge, making it resistant to the passage of time, and ef-
ficiently transfers it between people from the same and
different generations. Such inter-individual, sociological
processes support intra-individual, psychological learn-
ing and is termed teaching (Fig. 5).
Birds and mammals may also transfer knowledge
and skills to their young. However, in this case, learning
may base only on sensory code(s), hardly resistant to
time passing. On the contrary, using the verbal code, I
can learn from the ideas of, say, Plato or Aristotle, who
lived more than 2,000 years ago. This is thanks to the
Antropomotoryka
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti


'LVHTXLOLEULXP 0XOWLPRGDOYLUWXDOGLVHTXLOLEULXP
 DVVHVVPHQW 0

'LVHTXLOLEULXP

DQDO\VLV
 0RWRU
 SURJUDPPH
5HVSRQVH
 RUJDQL]DWLRQ
 'HVLUHGVWDWH ,QWHQGHGRXWFRPHDQG &RPSDUDWRU
DQWLFLSDWHGIHHGEDFN

0RWRU 9LVXDOGLVHTXLOLEULXP
 VFHQDULR 75
$FWXDOVWDWH
 7DFWLOH
0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP
 WHPSODWH 0
 3URSULRFHSWLYH
0RWRU GLVHTXLOLEULXP

FRXSOLQJ 0


,QWULQVLFIHHGEDFN

([WULQVLFIHHGEDFN
 0XVFOHV
 9'6

 02725
7'6
23(5$7,21

 (19,5210(17 3'6
5($&7,21

$FWXDOVWDWH
 3URSULR
FHSWRUV

 &RQWDFW
 FHSWRUV


7HOH
 FHSWRUV

&RQWDFWFHSWLYHWHOHFHSWLYHYHUEDO
 7HDFKHU¶VDFWLRQ


Figure 5. Conceptual organization of human motor operation including teaching
-

fact that the verbal code is completely detached from – gained some independence from reality and became
-

actual sensory experiences, hence, it does not obey the transcendental. At first, such a virtual, internal world
spatial and temporal limits specific to them. This mi- possibly and truly mirrored the real one (D-level). Later,
-

raculous aspect of language enabled the creation of the it became able to reject all the physical constraints of re-
culture and the science, which – during their evolution ality and rose to the level of fantasy (E-level). This is why
-

Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences 21

-

already 2,500 years ago Aristotle created the peripatetic
axiom, which in 13th century Thomas Aquinas expressed
in form: “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu”
(“nothing is in intellect that was not first in senses”).
Only in 17th century W. von Leibniz supplemented it with
the words: “excipe: nisi ipse intellectus” (“except the
understanding itself”) [20]. Hence, human image of the
world, no matter how abstract, is primarily rooted in sen-
sory experiences.
Adding the teaching process to Fig. 4 leads to the
construction of Fig. 5. To master a motor operation (i.e.,
the goal-aimed, deliberated motor activity, based on
possible precise anticipation), it is inevitable to build the
proper motor couplings, motor templates, motor sce-
narios, and motor programmes; in short to merge them
together into one consistent, efficient motor schema. All
these motor behaviour patterns have to be formed by
a trainee independently. Already 2,500 years ago, So-
crates stated that “I cannot teach anybody anything.
I can only make them think”. Let us be reminded that the
only manifestation of each and every mental, psychical
process is the movement. Hence, the sentence by So-
crates also concerns motor operation teaching.
However, while observing the results of a trainee’s
motor operation, a qualified teacher may (and ought to)
discover any imperfections of such an operation much
earlier than the trainee him/herself. Already at that mo-
ment, the teacher should interrupt the process of fixing
the improper motor behaviour pattern. In a nutshell, the
extrinsic feedback should suppress the intrinsic one.
Next, the teacher should create new “initial conditions”
enabling the trainee to find the proper way of solving
a given motor task and create relatively stable, useful
motor behaviour patterns.
It should be emphasized that in the teaching process,
intrinsic and extrinsic feedback have to constitute a co-
herent system, and not a sum. This is why, nowadays,
teaching is to a great extent an art, and not merely crafts-
manship.
Conclusion
The main idea of this paper was inspired by the fol-
lowing statement of J.T. Cacioppo:
Contemporary psychological scientists stand on the shoulders of
those who went before. From this perch it is now possible to see
that the bounded fields of the 20th century are related parts of the
-
same landscape. This is a requisite step for bringing research on
pieces of related problems together to address bigger questions
and to develop more comprehensive scientific theories [38].
-
Inevitably, such a methodology needs adjusting of
-
different theories to each other, which unavoidably, de-
mands their modifications. This has been illustratively
-
22
-
Wacław Petryński
expressed by T.H. Huxley, who stated that “every great
advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute
rejection of authority.” Such a declaration is, no doubt,
an overstatement, but nevertheless, in science even the
greatest achievements cannot be treated as “unshakable
monuments”. So, the followers of the Giants have to be
ready to bend, polish and sometimes even cut out ele-
ments of their ideas. No matter, how great is the esteem
that those Giants deserved personally and how impu-
dent sacrilege such an act seems to be. This is the only
mechanism enabling real progress – and not merely bare
development – in science. In this respect highly instruc-
tive is the history of physics at the break of 19th and 20th
century, when many apparently perfect ideas had to be
enhanced, and sometimes even refuted.
Rough empirical data seem to be “safe” and undis-
putable, indeed, yet in itself, completely intellectually
infertile. Only “risky” and flexible interpretations – just
as flexibility makes them liable to modifications and ad-
aptations – produce science. This is why Nobel laureate
P. Medawar stated that “theory destroys facts”. Never-
theless, just the elusive theory and not the hard facts,
makes up the very essence of science. Theories are
based on interpretations, and each scientist – genuine
scientist – interprets in his/her own way. Just such intel-
lectual diversity makes the fertile ground for the evolu-
tion of science.
The empirical method of reality research is not free
from traps. For example, in the fMRI software, there was
a bug which distorted the results of such measurements
for a period of about 20 years [39]. So, no matter how
highly sophisticated modern technological devices are,
the science is “woven” not out of facts, but of interpreta-
tions. This is why R. Dawkins stated that “careful infer-
ence can be more reliable than actual observation, how-
ever strongly our intuition protests at admitting it” [40].
On the other hand, the process of sheer collecting of
“new, original, experimental data” alone – light, easy and
fashionable, indeed – makes merely what I term “dull
planing of wooden science”. Only interpretations and
hypotheses mark the treacherous path towards theory,
which makes the very core of Science (with a capital
“S”).
While taking the metaphor by Cacioppo into con-
sideration, this paper makes an attempt at joining what
might be regarded as “Schmidt’s bounded field” with
“Bernstein’s bounded field”. Both these Giants in mo-
tor control were resolute opponents of any “fences” in
science, though each of them followed his own, ratio-
nal methodology. Last but not least: both Bernstein and
Schmidt showed how to put the views of other scientists
into question with high personal regard to them.
To sum up, the main modifications of Schmidt’s theo-
ry proposed in this paper consist in:
Antropomotoryka
 A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein and R.A. Schmidti

1. Extended – while comparing to Schmidt’s original
concept – consideration of various modality mecha-
nisms of information processing, in the spirit of N.A.
Bernstein. While seen from such a perspective, the
sensors may be regarded as embryonic compara-
tors, or the comparator – as the most developed sen-
sor. This highlights the phenomenon of multimodality
of information processing in living creatures, espe-
cially humans.
2. Taking the control mode as a criterion for division of
motor behaviour patterns into schemas and sched-
ules. Here one may trace the shadow of old dispute
between Schmidt and Adams concerning “open
loop” (feedforward) and “closed loop” (feedback)
control modes. In this paper the patterns which are
or may be performed in feedforward mode should
be termed “schemas”, whereas those which need
feedback mode – “schedules”.
3. The “matured” schedule transforms into schema.
This is fully coherent with Bernstein’s rule that one of
the most important steps in motor habit formation is
“pushing down” particular elements of a motor op-
eration to the lowest possible level and shifting the
control mode from “attention-consuming” feedback
to “attention-less” feedforward. Let us remember
that a lower level is “cheaper” (in intellectual and
physiological terms) and enables swifter motor op-
eration execution than a higher one.
As already mentioned, science cannot be regarded
as a row of monuments, no matter how great respect is
deserved by the people standing on them. Accordingly,
such a dispute as presented in this paper is essentially
much more “Bernsteinian” and “Schmidtian” than sim-
ple, nearly mechanical referring to their – no doubt great,
indeed – achievements.
Let this paper be my humble homage to the great
scientist, Giant in motor control, Professor Richard Allen
Schmidt (1941-2015). To his disposal, he had both ex-
tensive knowledge and openness to new ideas; in great
scientists, these two items rarely go hand in hand. More-
over, he was able to present his concepts clearly and
understandably. Also remarkable was his friendliness
and sense of humour. As W. James stated, “common
sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving
at different speeds; a sense of humor is just common
sense, dancing”. Following this metaphor, Dick’s sense
of humour danced rock’n’roll rather than the slow-fox
or waltz.
His passing away closed a defined epoch in motor
control. His great service is not only an introduction of
“new intellectual air” into motor control, in the spirit of
the cognitivist and not behaviouristic philosophy; here
the difference between the nearly identically sounding
terms “behaviouristic” and “behavioural” should be em-
phasized. His impressive knowledge was firmly rooted in
behavioural reality, indeed, but his unfettered, indepen-
dent mind escaped far “beyond the information given”.
In this respect, he may be put on a par with, say, George
A. Miller, Jerome S. Brunner or Noam Chomsky. Howev-
er, he also closed several “dead-ends” in motor control
as a science. In some cases, he personally prevented
me from going down the wrong path. I am sure that
his ideas made, make, and will make up the intellectual
seeds which will further germinate and ripen in science.
According to the famous physicist Paul Dirac just this
makes the measure of greatness of a scientist…

References
[1] Bernstein NA: On the construction of movements [in Russian]. Moscow: Medgiz; 1947.
[2] Bernstein NA: On dexterity and its development [in Russian]. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport; 1991.
[3] Bernstein NA: On dexterity and its development. (In:) Latash ML, Turvey MT, editors, Dexterity and its development. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996.
[4] Schmidt RA: A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 1975: 225-260.
[5] Schmidt RA: Motor control and learning. A behavioral emphasis. Second edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publi-
shers, Inc.; 1988.
[6] Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA: Motor learning and performance. A situation-based learning approach. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2008.
[7] Schmidt RA, Lee TD: Motor control and learning. A behavioral emphasis. Fifth edition. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics; 2011.
[8] Wohl A: Word and movement: The selected issues of theory of human motoricity [in Polish]. Warsaw: Akademia Wychowa-
nia Fizycznego; 1965.
-

[9] Ukhtomsky AA: Collected works [in Russian]. Leningrad: Nauka; 1978.
[10] Sirotkina IE: Bernstein: The years before and after the “Pavlovian Session” [in Russian]. (In:) Yaroshevsky MG, editor, Repre-
-

sirovannaya nauka. Sankt Petersburg: Nauka; 1991: 319-326.

[11] Feigenberg IM: Nikolai Bernstein – from reflex to the model of future [in Russian]. Smysl: Moscow; 2004.
[12] Bertalanffy L, von: General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller; 1968.
-

[13] Anokhin PK: The basic problems of general theory of functional systems [in Russian]. (In:) Principy sistemnoy organizacii
funkciy. Moscow: Nauka; 1973: 5-61.
-

Journal of Kinesiology and Exercise Sciences 23

-
 Wacław Petryński

[14] Bernstein NA: Contemporary researches into physiology of neural processes [in Russian]. Moscow: Smysl; 2003.
[15] Bogdanov AA: Tektology – the general science on organization [in Russian]. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1989.
[16] Lee TD, Wulf G, Winstein CJ, Zelaznik HN (2016): In Memoriam: Richard Allen Schmidt (1941-2015). Journal of Motor
Behavior, 0(0), 2016: 1-4.
[17] Dewhurst D.J. (1967). Neuromuscular control system. IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering, 14, pp. 167-171.
[18] Crago PE, Houk JC, Hasan Z: Regulatory actions of human stretch reflex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 39, 1976: 925-935.
[19] Heller M: Philosophy of science. Introduction [in Polish]. Krakow: Petrus; 2011.
[20] Petryński W: Motor control. A system-theoretical approach. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers; at press.
[21] Sporns O, Edelman GM: Bernstein’s dynamic view of the brain: The current problems of modern neurophysiology (1945).
Motor Control, 2:1998; 283-305.
[22] Latash ML: Fundamentals of motor control. London: Academic Press; 2012.
[23] Damasio AR: Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York, NY: Quill; 2000.
[24] Trevarthen CB: Two mechanisms of vision in primates. Psychologische Forschung, 31 4, 1968, 299-337.
[25] Milner A, Goodale MA: The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
[26] Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M: Two cortical visual systems, (In:) Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW, editors, Analysis of
visual behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1982: 549-586.
[27] Jakóbczyk W: I was always myself [in Polish]. Cars. Magazyn o samochodach, 8(12); 28-31.
[28] Sugano D: Cell phone use and motor vehicle collisions. A review of the studies. Honolulu, HI: Legislative Reference Bureau,
Sate Capitol; 2005.
[29] Vygotsky LS: Problem of teaching and mental development in school age [in Polish]. (In:) Wybrane prace psychologiczne.
Warsaw: PWN; 1971: 531-547.
[30] Piaget J, Inhelder B: The psychology of the child. New York, NY; 2000.
[31] Penrose R: The large, the small, and human mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[32] Talyzina NF: Directing the process of knowledge assimilation [in Russian]. Moscow: Izdatelstwo moskovskogo universiteta;
1975.
[33] Bogen MM: Motor performances learning [in Russian]. Moscow: Fizkulturai sport; 1985.
[34] Ungerer D: On theory of sensorimotor learning, 2nd edition [in German]. Schorndorf: Verlag Hofmann; 1973.
[35] Petryński W: A scientific evening with N.A. Bernstein, G.A. Miller and A.G. Feldman. Antropomotoryka; 2016, at press.
[36] Kahneman D: Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1973.
[37] Frankenhaeuser M: To err is human; nuclear war by mistake? [In:] Helkama K, editor: Congress Proceedings, Congress of
Psychologists for Peace. Helsinki: Finnish Psychological Society;1987.
[38] Cacioppo JT: A letter to young scientist. Observer 21(3), 2008; 39-40.
[39] Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutsson H: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1602413113; 2016.
[40] Dawkins R: The greatest show in the world. The evidence for evolution. New York, NY: Free Press, Simon & Schuster; 2009.
View publication stats

Author for correspondence:

Wacław Petryński
E-mail: waclaw.petrynski@interia.pl
-
-
-
-

24 Antropomotoryka
-