The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine

Slobodan Jaric, Mark Latash

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Within the present paper we provide the arguments that contradict Gottlieb's conclusions regarding the theoretical implications of kinematics of movements performed with unexpectedly changed inertial loads. First, the load associated changes in movement velocity presented by Gottlieb may be caused by apparent methodological differences, when compared to our earlier results. Moreover, the present data can be interpreted by the equilibrium-point hypothesis as well as by Gottlieb's hypothesis. Second, Gottlieb remains silent on findings related to the movement time and symmetry ratio that contradict predictions based on either torque control or Gottlieb's hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that the data obtained on rapid movements performed with unexpected changes in inertial load support equilibrium-point hypothesis, rather that any of the torque control based models.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)933-938
Number of pages6
JournalHuman Movement Science
Volume19
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Torque
Biomechanical Phenomena

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

Jaric, Slobodan ; Latash, Mark. / The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine. In: Human Movement Science. 2000 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 933-938.
@article{6710ead6af6e4ecfb0acec1648573d9a,
title = "The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine",
abstract = "Within the present paper we provide the arguments that contradict Gottlieb's conclusions regarding the theoretical implications of kinematics of movements performed with unexpectedly changed inertial loads. First, the load associated changes in movement velocity presented by Gottlieb may be caused by apparent methodological differences, when compared to our earlier results. Moreover, the present data can be interpreted by the equilibrium-point hypothesis as well as by Gottlieb's hypothesis. Second, Gottlieb remains silent on findings related to the movement time and symmetry ratio that contradict predictions based on either torque control or Gottlieb's hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that the data obtained on rapid movements performed with unexpected changes in inertial load support equilibrium-point hypothesis, rather that any of the torque control based models.",
author = "Slobodan Jaric and Mark Latash",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00041-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "933--938",
journal = "Human Movement Science",
issn = "0167-9457",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine. / Jaric, Slobodan; Latash, Mark.

In: Human Movement Science, Vol. 19, No. 6, 01.01.2000, p. 933-938.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The equilibrium-point hypothesis is still doing fine

AU - Jaric, Slobodan

AU - Latash, Mark

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Within the present paper we provide the arguments that contradict Gottlieb's conclusions regarding the theoretical implications of kinematics of movements performed with unexpectedly changed inertial loads. First, the load associated changes in movement velocity presented by Gottlieb may be caused by apparent methodological differences, when compared to our earlier results. Moreover, the present data can be interpreted by the equilibrium-point hypothesis as well as by Gottlieb's hypothesis. Second, Gottlieb remains silent on findings related to the movement time and symmetry ratio that contradict predictions based on either torque control or Gottlieb's hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that the data obtained on rapid movements performed with unexpected changes in inertial load support equilibrium-point hypothesis, rather that any of the torque control based models.

AB - Within the present paper we provide the arguments that contradict Gottlieb's conclusions regarding the theoretical implications of kinematics of movements performed with unexpectedly changed inertial loads. First, the load associated changes in movement velocity presented by Gottlieb may be caused by apparent methodological differences, when compared to our earlier results. Moreover, the present data can be interpreted by the equilibrium-point hypothesis as well as by Gottlieb's hypothesis. Second, Gottlieb remains silent on findings related to the movement time and symmetry ratio that contradict predictions based on either torque control or Gottlieb's hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that the data obtained on rapid movements performed with unexpected changes in inertial load support equilibrium-point hypothesis, rather that any of the torque control based models.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038542854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038542854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00041-0

DO - 10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00041-0

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 933

EP - 938

JO - Human Movement Science

JF - Human Movement Science

SN - 0167-9457

IS - 6

ER -