Kelsey Brunelle

Motor Learning
Dr. Adams
May 4, 2011

Introduction:

Bilateral transfer, also known as cross-transfer or cross-education, is when the

same skill is learned, however, with the contralateral limb. This well-known

phenomenon is the reason why a person is able to learn a particular skill with one limb

and then learn it on the contralateral limb.

In the following experiment, the body explored bilateral transfer by using the non-

preferred hand to outline a star, then performed four trials on the preferred hand, then

finally a post-test on the non-preferred hand. In the experiment, there was a great deal

of improvement throughout the pre-test and post-test (non-preferred hand) along with

improvement in the four trials (preferred hand).

Bilateral transfer is said to occur either asymmetrically (there is a greater amount

of transfer from one limb to the next) or symmetrically (where the amount of transfer is

common from one limb to the next, regardless of the limb used first). Although

asymmetric is favored and highly used, there are still questions of whether or not the

transfer should be from the preferred hand to the non-preferred hand or vice versa.

There reason why bilateral transfer occurs is said to be both cognitive and motor

control. The cognitive aspect allows the brain to know “what to do” regardless of the

limb used. The motor control explanation says explains that through the generalized
motor program the body is able adjust itʼs parameters according to the different limbs.

Also because of the transfer of the skill in the hemispheres.

This experiment explored the concepts of bilateral transfer while learning a skill.

Methods and Procedures:

This experiment examined the bilateral transfer of learning by getting in groups of

two. Each person, by the end of the experiment, had an opportunity to be the subject of

the experiment and the observer (who timed the other subject doing the experiment).

Each student was given 6 stars and the subjects job was to draw a continuous line

within the outside guidelines of the star. Speed, rather than accuracy, was the most

important variable to use during the experiment. The paper was covered by a cover so

the subject was unable to see the star straight on. The only means of visual cues was

looking at the reflection of the both the star and pencil through the mirror. The

observerʼs job at this time is to make sure the subject uses the correct hand (either

preferred or non-preferred hand), count the errors the subject makes (how many times

the pen touches or goes outside the guidelines given), and times the subject to see if

their time improved throughout the experiment. The order of which are trials are done

are one pre-test trial with the non-preferred hand, four trials with the preferred hand, and

one post-trial with the non-preferred hand.

Results:
 Victoria Santos

Trial Hand Errors Time (in Scores

seconds)

Pre-test Non-preferred 27 70 1.03

Training Preferred 8 70 1.28

Trial 1

Training Preferred 17 50 1.49

Trial 2

Training Preferred 8 46 1.85

Trial 3

Training Preferred 6 43 2.04

Trial 4

Post-test Non-preferred 19 47 1.52

Percent 1.47%

In the chart of Victoria Santos, her results consistently increased from training 1 to 4

and between her Pre-test and Post-test. There was also a good size increase between

her Pre-test and Post test (.49). Her overall percent improvement was 1.47%.

Kelsey Brunelle

Trial Hand Errors Time (in Scores

seconds)

Pre-test Non-preferred 15 97 0.89

Training Preferred 36 36 1.39

Trial 1

Training Preferred 21 37 1.72

Trial 2
 Trial Hand Errors Time (in Scores
seconds)

Training Preferred 14 36 2
Trial 3

Training Preferred 14 38 1.92

Trial 4

Post-test Non-preferred 33 67 1

Percent: 1.12%

In the chart above, like Victoria, I increased my scores, except on the fourth trial. My

scores declined from 2 to 1.92 (-.08). However, my scores did increase from Pre-test to

Post-test. My overall improvement, although not as good as Victoriaʼs was 1.12%.

Score = _____100______j Post-test Trial Score = % improvement

Seconds + Errors Pre-test Trial Score

Mean Scores of Each Trial

Trial Mean

Pre-test (.89+1.03)/2 = .96

Training (Trail 1) (1.39+1.28)/2 = 1.335

Training (Trail 2) (1.72+1.49)/2 = 1.605

Training (Trail 3) (2+1.85)/2 = 1.925

Training (Trail 4) (1.92+2.04)/2 = 1.98

 Trial Mean

Post-test (1+1.52)/2 = 1.26

The results show that Victoria and myself did better each time we attempted the skill.

Especially for the Pre-test and Post-test our scores increased by .3. No matter if our

scores increased by .3 or .055 there was always a slight increase.

Results of Scores for Victoria Santos

and Kelsey Brunelle

Victoria Santos Kelsey Brunelle

Pre-Test (Non-preferred)

Trial 1 (Preferred)

Trial 2 (Preferred)

Trial 3 (Preferred)

Trial 4 (Preferred)

Post-Test (Non-preferred)

0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3

Scores
 In the chart above, the results for Victoria were always increased (trial 1 to trial 5 and

Pre-test to Post-test). However, as the graph shows, my results werenʼt as consistent

throughout. Generally, the results were very similar otherwise.

Mean Scores of Victoria Santos and

Kelsey Brunelle

Mean of Scores

Pre-Test (Non-preferred)

Trial 1 (Preferred)

Trial 2 (Preferred)

Trial 3 (Preferred)

Trial 4 (Preferred)

Post-Test (Preferred)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Scores

In the above chart, it is easily visible to see that the scores together (Victoria and

myself) always had a consistent increase. There was a significant increase between the

first and last trial.

 Discussion:

1. For Victoria, each time she performed the next trial her course of learning increased

and she did better. In trial 1, she had 8 errors and it took her 70 seconds to complete

the entire trial. On the first trial she substituted errors for time, however, by the next

trial she increased her speed and had more errors. On trial 2, she had 17 errors and

her time was 50 seconds, deducting 20 seconds from her previous time. On the next

trial she once again decreased the time by 4 seconds by receiving an overall time of

46 seconds. The amount of errors she had also decreased as she only made 8

mistakes. On the fourth and final trial she only had 6 errors, 2 less than trial 3 and it

only took her 43 seconds to complete the outline of the star. From the beginning to

the end, she decreased her time by 27 seconds. Although her errors fluctuated

because she was focusing on accuracy rather than speed, over all total amount of

errors also decreased. During the experiment in order to decrease my overall time

and go faster I had a couple strategies in mind. I always started on the right side of

the star right below, starting right underneath one of the points. I also consistently

went down and worked my way all the way around. I felt as though this way I would

have a consistent idea of where I was drawing each time I did a new trial. It was

helpful because I never had to struggle on where I was going. After a couple times I

had a pretty good idea of where I was going next.

2. According to the reading, there are two reasons why bilateral transfer occurs. The

first reason is the cognitive explanation which states that the ability to think is a key

component of why a person is able to transfer from a practiced to a non-practiced

 state. This information is obtained in the initial stages of learning and this cognitive

information is obtained while using both limbs. In the “identical elements” theory

suggested by Thorndike, he explains that this cognitive stage allows the performer to

know “what to do”. When taking into consideration the act of throwing a baseball at a

target with the left hand and then the right hand, one can consider these two

completely different skills. However, certain components of these two separate skills

have similar qualities. They both have leg and arm extension, focusing on the target,

and they both have the same follow-through technique at the end. This idea

demonstrates that once a person understands the cognitive, or “what to do” phase for

one of the arms, having to relearn is not essential for the other arm.

The other explanation to bilateral transfer is the motor control idea. This

hypothesis states that according to the generalized motor system, the muscles are not

an invariant characteristic, rather a parameter. As a result of this, the generalized

motor program is acquired through practice, and if one limb is sufficiently practiced,

then the body would only need to apply the invariant characteristics to the

contralateral limb and it will be able to perform the same skill. Although there are

some factors which would deter the performance, such as biomechanics or specificity

of training, the body would still be able to perform the skill. It would not be performed

as well as the practiced hand, but because of the past experience with the

experienced arm, the performance was that much better during the contralateral arm.

The evidence to back up the motor control explanation is the idea that bilateral

transfer is transferred through the hemispheres. This evidence is shown through EMG

activity which shows the activity in the skeletal muscles. When EMG activity occurs,
 the central nervous systems job is to send signals to the muscles. The EMG also

shows that the activity of the contralateral limb showed the most activity. Both the

cognitive and motor aspects are proven with evidence, therefore researchers claim

that both explanations are used among bilateral transfer.

3. In the bilateral effect phenomenon there are many interesting thoughts of whether it

is a symmetric or asymmetric transfer. In an asymmetric transfer, the body learns a

specific skill and then learns it with the contralateral limb with a greater amount of

transfer. However, in a symmetric transfer, the amount of transfer is similar

regardless of which limb is used first. Itʼs important to answer these intriguing

questions because it will allow us to understand the role of the two cerebral

hemispheres on movement along with allowing professionals to design the best

training method to obtain optimal performance. The most accepted of these types of

transfers is the asymmetric transfer. However, there is still some debate of whether

or not the asymmetric transfer favors non-preferred to preferred or vice versa when

learning a new skill. In the past, it was found that the most transfer was found when

the preferred limb was practiced with first and then the contralateral limb. For most

skill training and rehabilitation, which this would be used for, the greatest transfer was

found from preferred to the non-preferred limb. Evidence has been able to support

this idea along with other factors: a personʼs motivation. If a person is able to perform

a certain skill on one limb, this will influence them to try the other limb and have a

greater chance of succeeding because they will have a boost of confidence.

4. A skill that I would use bilateral transfer for would be a simple toss to a teammate in

the sport of soccer. The performer would want to be able to successfully kick the ball

to a fellow teammate with either leg and eventually be in the autonomous stage of

learning (the skill is done pretty much automatically). In the first stages of learning,

cognitive, the soccer player is just getting aware of their surroundings and how to

perform the task at hand. The first thing i would do it make them kick the ball straight

ahead to a teammate and ensure that they are successfully able to do so with their

dominant leg. Then I would have the student kick it at different angles to a teammate.

As the performer entered into the associative stages of learning they would try to

refine their skills and they would feel a little more confident with themselves. This

stage I would work with them by making them kick it to a fellow teammate during a

game where there would be opponents to block them. This would be at different

forces, lengths and even angles. Entering into the autonomous stages, the soccer

player would be able to do the skill almost automatically under any condition. If a

coach waited until the autonomous stage to practice with the other side of the leg, it

may not be as successful as if they did it together with the other leg in the earlier

stages of learning. This is because the soccer player would have to relearn and go

through all of the stages of learning on the non-preferred hand. Because at the

autonomous stage the performer does not think about performing the skill it comes

“naturally”, thinking about performing the skill may almost cause the performer to

digress and have to start from the beginning. The trainer should not teach the soccer

player too late in their stages of learning.

 Conclusion:

In this experiment, the task explored the phenomenon of bilateral transfer.

Through the use of bilateral transfer, the body is able to perform the same skill on both

the preferred and non-preferred limbs. The body is able to do this transfer either

asymmetrically or symmetrically, although most conclude that asymmetrically is most

common especially among rehabilitators and during times when a new skill is used.

Because of our ability to use our cognitive skills and motor skills we are able to

successfully accomplish bilateral transfer when learning.