Book Description

The basic understanding of human movement and control of human movement stems largely from laboratory measurements where human movement can be quantified with high precision and accuracy, but where the artificial environment compromises ecological validity. A good example for this issue was demonstrated in a recent investigation; specifically that the walking gait pattern of healthy individuals in a laboratory changed as a function of how many researchers were present during the experiment. Observations like these underscore that study volunteers adapt their behavior to the specific laboratory environment and warrant the question of how well we can transfer our lab-based understanding of gait patterns and the underlying neuromuscular control system to walking during daily living. Another research area where lab-based movement assessments have led to conflicting findings is the field of sports injury prevention: Many neuromuscular training programs have been shown to be effective in reducing the sport injury rate in athletes by 30-50% or more in a variety of different multi-directional sports. Nevertheless, lab-based assessments of the same athletes who completed those training programs were often not able to detect improvements in motor control of sport-specific movements or a reduction in joint loading, two factors thought to be closely linked with sport injury risk. This disconnect suggests that lab-based assessments of movement and motor control are often poor indicators of player behavior during real-game scenarios and may limit our ability to screen athletes for injury risk or monitor their progress in rehabilitation. These examples highlight that we should strive for the assessment and investigation of human movement and motor control in natural environments, i.e. where individuals, patients, athletes, or other groups of interest perform, explore, and interact under real-world conditions.