BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
!
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
304 of 314
In Tribute: Reflections on the Impact of Professor Michael Turvey on Motor
Development
JILL WHITALL
1
| JANE E. CLARK
2
1
Department of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Science, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA
2
Department of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
Correspondence to:!Jane E. Clark
4200 Valley Drive, Suite 2242, College Park, Maryland 20742-2611
email: jeclark@umd.edu
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v17i6.419
ABBREVIATIONS
ETA Ecological Task Analysis
UCM Uncontrolled Manifold Hypothesis
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 21 12 2023
Accepted 15 12 2023
Published 22 12 2023
ABSTRACT
In our tribute to Professor Michael Turvey, we have two parallel goals: 1) to highlight the
scientific scope of Turvey’s impact on motor development; and, 2) to expose readers to
papers that they may not have read but that might cast new light on age-old questions they
confront in their current research on motor development. The paper is divided into two equal
time periods. In Part 1, from 1975 to 1999, we trace the emergence and growth of Dynamic
Systems/Ecological Realism (perception-action) paradigms. We explain how the existing
paradigms in motor development research, the descriptive and information processing
paradigms were, in part, replaced by new paradigms whose existence owes much to Michael
Turvey and his colleagues. We suggest that this time period was one where Turvey had the
most conceptual influence on the field. In Part 2, from 2000 to 2024, we describe how factors,
including the emergence of two new paradigms in motor development research may have
reduced Turvey’s direct influence. But we also note that there is still much research
undertaken that builds off the bases of Dynamic Systems and Perception-Action Coupling
approaches including research by Turvey and his students/colleagues. We end with the
suggestion that the present generation of motor development researchers may have
something to gain by re-/reading research from these perspectives regardless of whether it is
directly from Professor Turvey’s pen or from those whom he influenced (or influenced him).
KEYWORDS: Motor development | Dynamic system | Perception-action | Michael Turvey
INTRODUCTION
In 2006, the first paper in the inaugural issue of the Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior highlighted the history and future
directions for motor behavior at the beginning of the 21
st
century
1
. Not surprisingly, Professor Michael Turvey, was featured as one of the
critical thought-leaders in the field. Today, while we are saddened by his passing (August 12, 2023), we are honored to contribute to this
special issue of the journal in remembrance of Michael Turvey and his impact on the field of motor development. Motor development we
define as, “changes in motor behavior over the lifespan and the process (es) which underlie these changes (p.184)”
2
and it is to
understanding the principles that underlie the changes that Professor Turvey had the greatest impact.
As background, we first met and read Professor Turvey in the 1980’s. Around this time and later, when asked if he ever
considered studying motor development and conducting experiments with children, his answer was an unequivocal “no” - with the
rationale that children were too complex to understand! Paradoxically, given his response, Turvey’s writings and experiments had, what
we consider to be, a profound influence on many motor development researchers and their approach to their scientific experiments and
writings.
Our approach in this paper had two parallel goals: 1) to highlight the scientific scope of Turvey’s impact on motor development
through detailing how motor development researchers referenced and used his work; and, 2) to expose readers to papers that they may
not have read but that could cast new light on age-old questions they confront in their current research in motor development.
Methodologically, this paper is a subjective, historical, narrative essay that required us to re-read selected Turvey papers and to peruse a
range of papers by motor development researchers. The paper is in two parts. In Part 1, we conclude that Professor Turvey’s greatest
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
305 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
conceptual influence on the study of motor development was circa 1975-1999 and was both direct and indirect. In Part 2, we conclude
that his influence still exists, but possibly to a lesser extent. We suggest a potential for a renewed influence in Professor Turvey’s and
others writings.
PART 1. THE EMERGENCE AND GROWTH OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS/ECOLOGICAL REALISM PARADIGMS
(1975-1999).
We, and others, refer to the chapter in Kelso and Clark’s book
3
by Peter Kugler, Scott Kelso & Michael Turvey
4
, “On the control
and co-ordination of naturally developing systems,” as the conceptual beginning of a paradigm shift in motor development
2,5,6
. The Kelso
and Clark book was the result of a 1979 conference focused on the development of movement control and coordination with over 20
invited developmentalists (mostly studying movement) discussing their research. While Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey’s
4
lengthy, tutorial and
challenging chapter, was undoubtedly a seminal work, we would be remiss if we did not raise the following caveats before addressing our
mission of highlighting Professor Turvey’s contributions to motor development.
First, we recognize, as Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey
4
did, two scientists, Nicolai Bernstein
7
and James Gibson
8
whose ideas
were strongly influential respectively to, at that time, the embryonic paradigms of Dynamic Systems and Ecological Realism. We mention
this not to suggest that Bernstein and Gibson (among many others referenced) are directly responsible for influencing motor development
research. Rather, we emphasize that it was the brilliance of Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey to take the ideas, mostly from other fields such as
“philosophy, biology, engineering science and, in particular, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the ecological approach to perception
and action (p.5)”
4
and explicate/apply them to motor development (and motor behavior in general) in a way that ultimately promoted new
and heuristic directions of research and increased understanding of existing developmental data.
Second, we recognize that it is not easy to separate the contributions of one person (Professor Turvey) from Professors Kugler
and Kelso. We can offer a nod in this direction by looking at publications from Professor Turvey with and without other collaborators.
Related to this point is that the Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey
4
chapter was not the first paper to present the principles that eventually led to
the paradigmatic changes to Dynamic Systems and Ecological Realism. In addition to the oft-mentioned 1980 paper by the same three
authors “On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures”, which does not contain a developmental focus but covers
some of the same ground
9
, there are other far earlier papers. We suggest, Turvey’s
(1977)
10
paper entitled “Preliminaries to a theory of
action with reference to vision” is most notable and, since it was written in 1974 and pre-published in 1975
11
, it anchors our early starting
point for his conceptual contributions. Another paper in 1978, this time with Shaw and Mace as co-authors, is entitled “Issues in a theory
of action: degrees of freedom, coordinative structures and coalitions”
12
. Taken together, we suggest that Michael Turvey was possibly the
prime mover, in bringing the concepts of coordinative structures (functional muscle synergies), a coalition/heterarchical organization
(differentiation between the high-level abstract action plan and lower-level autonomous tuning), and a direct matching between visual
perception and action (affordances) into prominence. Of course, this is probably a simplification, but it provides a starting point for our
historical story of Professor Turvey’s influence on motor development research.
As a brief background, in the 1970’s motor development research was dominated by two quite separate paradigmatic
approaches (e.g.,
2,6
). The first was a descriptive approach chronicling the natural changing behaviors of fundamental motor skills in
children (e.g.,
13,14
) or underlying contributing abilities such as strength and cardio-vascular functioning (e.g.,
15,16
). The idea was to map
how these naturally occurring motor skills and fitness attributes changed over time and to determine the relationships between the skills
and abilities
17
. There was little effort to discover the principles underlying how and why the changes occurred except to refer to
neuromuscular maturation and, for some, to recognize an effect of environmental forces like teaching.
The second approach offered an alternative view focused on the underlying factors in the form of information processing
abilities such as response selection and programming
18,19
and memory processes
20
using simple laboratory tasks such as reaction time
or linear positioning tasks. In this process-oriented perspective, it was hypothesized that central motor programs and schema develop in
the brain
21
, but again exactly how this might occur was difficult to describe or understand, particularly for complex and whole-body
movements. When the Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey
4
chapter was published, a few researchers from both paradigms were ready for
conceptualizations that were more explanatory and more grounded in the complexity and dynamics of movement within the environment.
One of the first motor development researchers to refer directly to Turvey’s work was Michael Wade in his chapter on the timing
(coincident-anticipation) behavior in children published in Kelso & Clark’s book
22
. Wade contrasts the conventional information
processing framework of either central
21
or peripheral
23
roles of timing in skilled behavior with that of Gibson as expounded by Turvey
and his colleagues
12,24,25
. The latter believed that information in the environment directly specifies temporal details of movement that are
body-scaled to the mover. While Wade’s experiments were not designed to test/support a specific explanation, and his results could be
explained by either paradigm; Wade leaned towards the arguments from an ecological realism paradigm writing: “The ecological view,
however, argues for a view of timing in which the proper system for analysis is the animal/ environment synergy whereby a compatibility
is sought which is sensitive both to the environmental rhythms of timing and to the animal’s evolving design which is the complement p.
249)”
22
. Over our Part 1 time-period to 1999 and beyond, Wade remained influenced by the ecological realism approach; for example, in
his study on the control of posture in elderly vs younger adults
26
. Here Wade designs the experiment from within the paradigm by
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
306 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
comparing changes in optical flow with the maintenance of postural stability and he uses only an ecological interpretation of the results.
While Wade was moving from an information-processing approach towards an ecological (realism) approach, another motor
development researcher, who also published in the Kelso & Clark book
3
, was one of the book’s editors, Jane Clark, who was moving
towards what would become known as the Dynamic Systems or sometimes the Bernsteinian Perspective. Like Wade, Clark had been
experimentally immersed in the process-oriented approach, in her case studying the complex reaction times of children as they reacted to
compatible and incompatible stimuli. She, too, compared the process-oriented explanations of response mechanisms with
conceptualizations coming from Turvey
10
and specifically promoting the concept of a coordinative structure. “Such a response-
programming system is made possible by having the central executive system make use of the lower level organizations which control
individual movement components (p. 164)”
27
. For Clark, the key challenge was how does a coordinative structure arise and how does it
evolve? Six years later Clark began to answer this question in a longitudinal study of newborn infant walking
28
. She found that infants
appeared to begin walking with a basic coordinative structure in place (defined by interlimb phasing equivalent to adults). How this
evolved over the first few months was indicated by a reduction of intralimb coordination variability that was experimentally related to an
increase of postural stability. This study spawned a series of papers by Clark & colleagues, all conceptualized within the new Dynamic
Systems paradigm
29,30,31,32
.
The only other example of direct referencing to Turvey from the chapters of Kelso & Clark
3
was made by Karl Newell
33
in a
conceptual chapter on constructing a theory of motor development. References to Turvey emphasize the constancy function of perceiving
10
and the primacy of perceiving for learning
34
. Also, Newell cites both Bernstein
7
and Gibson
35
underscoring an appreciation of the new
paradigms, although not yet specifically using their work to devise experiments or explain existing data. Newell
36
, however, went on to
write a very accessible and influential conceptual paper expanding the concept of constraints and action by illustrating the existence of
three different types: organismic, task and environment, and their potential roles when interacting through development (and learning).
This conceptualization became known as the “constraints model” and has been used as a theoretical framework by many followers.
Thus Newell, while directly influenced by Turvey, became, himself, an influencer for those in motor development providing, what we will
call, an indirect effect of the Turvey influence. Newell also began to devise classic experiments influenced by both dynamic systems and
ecological realism concepts (especially affordances) exploring the relationship between hand grips used by children and adults
37
and by
infants from four to eight months
38
relative to hand-size and the size of the object to be grasped. In these experiments, when the object
is scaled to hand size there is a commonality in the limited number of grasp patterns afforded illustrating the concept that constraints limit
rather than prescribe, what is possible. The implications for motor assessment are profound.
Thus far we have mentioned only three early adopters of concepts from Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey
4
and Turvey papers out of
12 chapters in the Kelso and Clark conference book (25%). We now consider another conference that invited leading motor development
specialists this time from all over the world. Supported by NATO as part of its Advanced Science Institutes series on Behavioural and
Social Science, Whiting and Wade invited 45 speakers and produced two edited books both published in 1986
39,40
. At this conference,
sixteen researchers (36%; including Clark, Newell and Wade) referred to Turvey’s work with four of the 16 mentioning him collectively as
part of Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey papers
4,9
while the others cited many of his other papers as well. Of the thirteen researchers not
already mentioned we will highlight two researchers and list the remaining 11 here alphabetically: P.J. Beek, B. Bril, J.C. Fentress, B.
Hopkins, M. Jeannerod, P.N. Kugler, G. Reid, M.A. Roberton, P.C.W. van Wieringen, P.H. Wolff, and, H. Zelaznik.
The first paper we highlight was by Walter Davis
41
, an adapted physical educator, interested in understanding motor
deficiencies in children who were mentally handicapped. He began his paper stating the lack of a viable theoretical framework and
rejecting the information processing approach. He then offered the following: “One theoretical approach offering insight … views
coordination and control as arising from a mutually constrained actor-environment system (Fowler & Turvey, 1978)(p. 144)”
41
. Davis goes
on to cite empirical evidence of a coordinative structure of muscles functioning as a mass-spring system that operates similarly in both
the typically developing and mentally handicapped individuals but differs in how the unit is parameterized, that is, how it is controlled
42
. In
addition to Davis’s empirical work, we want to particularly emphasize a well-cited article entitled “Ecological Task Analysis: Translating
Movement Behavior Theory into Practice” that he published with Alan Burton
43
. Leaning heavily on Kugler, Kelso, Turvey
4
as well as
three other Turvey articles and Gibson, Davis & Burton update the traditional developmental task analyses of Herkowitz
44
and Morris
45
by, among many other changes, considering the concept of body-scaled affordances.
A second noteworthy contributor to the conference was Esther Thelen, a developmental ethologist by training, who had
become one of the most well-known motor development researchers by the early 1980’s. She began her career by making naturalistic
longitudinal observations of rhythmic stereotypies in normal human infants. Since the onset of particular stereotypies were highly
correlated with motor development, Thelen proposed that they were “manifestations of incomplete cortical control of endogenous
patterning in maturing neuromuscular pathways (p. 699)”
46
. In 1980, she proposed that a deficiency of vestibular stimulation may be one
determinant of persistent stereotypy
47
. And the next year, she suggested that “rhythmic stereotypies are a development of intrinsic
central motor programs (p. 237)”
48
. At this time, from her cited references, it appears that Thelen was following a biological maturation
based central pattern generator explanation. It is not until 1984 that we see clear referencing to Kugler, Kelso and Turvey’s papers
4,9
and the importance of dynamic qualities in development. “Movement, they argue, is as much a product of the mass stiffness, and inertial
properties of the limbs as of central neural properties (p.479)”
49
. Based on their data from three studies, Thelen and her colleagues
challenged the traditional explanation for the disappearance of the “primitive” stepping reflex being the suppression by maturation of
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
307 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
inhibitory tracts from the cortex. Instead, they demonstrate that a probable cause is simple physical growth that causes a temporary loss
of strength which can be ameliorated with training and does not require either maturation or cognitive change for explanation
50,51
.
While Thelen began to interpret her past work within a dynamical approach she, like Newell, also wrote solo conceptual papers
52,53,54
. In 1986, Thelen described a systems strategy to determine how an early generalized coordinative structure (for walking) would
change over time depending on “outcomes of interacting components, each with its own developmental course and acting within
definitive constraints and opportunities afforded by the context (p.110)”
54
. This paper and others, written with authors, Scott Kelso and
Alan Fogel
55
entitled, “Self-organizing systems and infant motor development,” and Beverley Ulrich
56
entitled, “Hidden skills: A dynamic
systems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year,” were well-cited and our point, as with Newell
36
, is to suggest that reference
to any of these conceptual papers are an indirect way of recognizing the influence of Turvey since he is acknowledged as influential by
the writers themselves. Of course, this may not mean that someone reading and following Newell or Thelen will actually
realize/acknowledge that Turvey is indirectly one of their own influencers. Nevertheless, an indirect influence is still valid for our purpose.
In addition, references to conceptual papers of Scott Kelso and Peter Kugler up to about 1990 also come into this category of indirect
influence when Turvey is not a co-author.
In 1990, there was third conference on motor development again funded by NATO. Bloch & Bertenthal
57
, the conference
organizers, invited 34 contributors to the conference entitled “Sensory-Motor Organizations and Development in Infancy and Early
Childhood.” For this conference 13 scientists in attendance either directly cited Turvey (8) or cited others influenced by Turvey (5). This
number equals 38%, similar to the previous conference, but, it should be noted, there were more people present who were psychologists
rather than those who were singularly focused on motor development. Unlike the previous conference, five papers mentioned the
dynamic systems/approach and or perception-action coupling in their titles. With Newell, Clark and Thelen present, we will highlight just
one individual. The remaining nine citing Turvey directly or indirectly are listed here (alphabetically): J. Benson, B.I. Bertenthal, H. Bloch,
G. Butterworth, A. Fogel, Y. Hatwell, A.F. Petersen, W. Warren, and M.H. Woollacott.
Our choice to highlight from the 1990 conference is Eugene Goldfield, a developmental psychologist, who, while tasked with
discussing two other papers, chose also to “discuss three issues about perceptual-motor development from a dynamical systems
perspective: (1) the brain-behavior relation, (2) flexibility and stability of behavior, and (3) emergent functions (p. 187)”
58
. This short and
accessible chapter remains a good read for those who find the Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey
4
paper less accessible, although we absolutely
recommend reading the latter. Goldfield’s work is notable, not only for a continued “use” of the dynamic systems perspective in terms of
concepts (such as coordination; tuning) and methods (such as relative phase and stability), but in the practical research questions that
addressed topics such as learning to use an infant bouncer
59
and coordination of sucking and swallowing during breast and bottle
feeding
60
.
To our knowledge there are no recent nor invited conference books on motor development where we might continue to look for
evidence of the influence of Professor Turvey and the use of a dynamic systems perspective and/or ecological realism (i.e., perception-
action coupling as we shall call it going forward in line with common usage). We recognize that there are many more motor development
researchers that we could mention, often students or colleagues of those already mentioned. As we conclude this first era, we provide a
selected exemplar list of motor development scientists, in addition to those already discussed or mentioned, who are representative of
the empirical work influenced by the new paradigms (listed alphabetically): K. Adolph
61,62
, D. Corbetta
63
, J. Jensen
64
, J. Konczak
65
, E.
Reed
66,67
, G. Savelsbergh
68
, B. Ulrich
69
, J. Whitall
70
.
Finally, we wish to recognize that Turvey
71
wrote a commentary in a special issue of the journal, Child Development entitled,
“Developmental Biodynamics: Brain, Body and Behavior Connections”. In their paper, Turvey and Fitzpatrick discuss the development
and function of perception-action systems (i.e., motor skills identifiable by collective variables and changed by control parameters) as
pattern formation processes or, more generally, as dynamical systems. This article has practical empirical suggestions and drew many
citations including those studying basic developmental mechanisms
72
, the role of variability in early motor development
73
and clapping
74
.
To summarize Part 1, (1975-1999), we have shown that the influence of Professor Turvey and his colleagues on motor
development researchers grew substantively during the last twenty-five years of the 20
th
century. Many began to use either a dynamic
systems or a perception-action (or both) perspective to understanding the development of motor skills. While we only highlighted six
researchers (and mentioned over 30 others) there were clearly many more. The examples chosen and indeed almost all of the studies
we are aware of during this period are focused on infancy and childhood. To be clear, not all researchers in motor development used
these frameworks and even some who did were not always referring directly to Professor Turvey’s work. However, all of the major
textbooks on motor development by 2000 and continued to the present had sections discussing the Dynamical Systems and Perception-
Action paradigms with reference to Professor Turvey (Current editions of these texts include
75,76,77,78,79
). Even Connolly and Forssberg’s
80
edited book, neither of whom were known for following these paradigms have chapters with authors who referenced Turvey’s work
81,82
.
We close Part 1 as we start the year 2000 because, in our history of motor development research
6,83
, we have marked this time
point as approximately when the Dynamical Systems and, to a lesser extent, the Perception-Action Approach began to yield to other
approaches to motor development research. This transition is quantitatively illustrated in Clark’s illustration of decades of motor
development research using Wordles
84
(see Figs. 4, 5 & 6).
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
308 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
PART 2: MOTOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE START OF THE 21
ST
CENTURY (2000-2024)
In 1990, the US National Institutes of Health declared the 90s the “Decade of the Brain”
85
. Obviously, the impact on behavioral
science and motor development included, was to shift the emphasis to studying the brain without necessarily incorporating action. In
combination with a variety of new neuroscience methodologies, some motor development researchers began adding brain measures to
their studies but without typically bringing with them a rigorous analysis of brain dynamics in conjunction with behavioral dynamics that
might be part of a dynamic systems approach
86
. We have broadly named this type of research a “Developmental Motor Neuroscience”
approach
83
. As we view it, researchers from this perspective are interested in brain-behavior interactions and/or in modeling motor
control from a neuroanatomical or engineering perspective. Explanations of cognition-movement interaction seem, at least on the
surface, to be driven more by prescription than by self-organization and a constraints perspective that would be more consistent with a
Dynamic Systems/Perception-Action approach.
Another paradigm that has emerged in the 21
st
century, we named a “Developmental Health” approach
83
. Again, an important
force for this research came from the US National Institutes of Health and the Office of the Surgeon General that both called for action to
address the growing prevalence of overweight and obesity in the population (Office of the Surgeon General [US] and National Institutes
of Health [US], 2001
87
). Many researchers began to focus on the use and promotion of motor skill development and physical activity and
especially how children became unfit and overweight. Many adopted a conceptual model
88
that tied together concepts such as self-
efficacy, fitness, motor competence and motor activity. This approach used correlational analyses as a principal analytical tool, with little
interest in situating the work in a broader Dynamical Systems or Perception Action framework.
Clearly, both the impact of society to address the obesity epidemic and the importance of understanding cognitive motor
neuroscience were important forces in reducing the amount of research conducted specifically within a dynamical systems or perception-
action paradigm. But we should not overlook another potential factor, the untimely deaths of two important and influential researchers.
Esther Thelen died in 2004 at 63 years. To say that she, herself, was also an influencer is an understatement and it is impossible to know
how many contributions she would have made or researchers influenced if she had lived even five more years. As Turvey, himself,
opined at her memorial service, “she moved her science (p. 106)”
89
.
The other untimely death was that of Alan Burton in 2001 at the young age of 47 years. We believe his work with Walter Davis
on an “Ecological Task Analysis” (ETA)
43
would have had a larger effect on motor development researchers, particularly those interested
in assessing motor abilities. To be fair, Davis did promote the ETA as seen in his edited book with Broadhead
90
. In our opinion, more
credit and use of the ETA would seem warranted.
While the Motor Neuroscience and Health dominant approaches may represent much of the research in motor development in
the first quarter of the 21
st
century, the influence of Turvey and his work is still very evident. First, for example in 2006, Turvey was invited
as the keynote speaker for the motor development section at the North American Society for the Study of Sport and Physical Activity.
Second, as we noted in Whitall et al.
83
, there is still a cadre of motor development researchers who have continued following and
expanding concepts from Dynamical Systems and Perception-Action paradigms
83
. As Thelen argued in 2000, motor development is
critical to understanding development as a whole, because all systems interact to produce behavioral development
91
. Therefore, systems
such as the motor, cognition, perception, and linguistics need to be considered together more formally than in the past and might best be
labeled under a “unifying” theoretical perspective named Developmental Systems
92
. We, and others, have embraced this name to
describe a perspective of interacting developing systems with a central but not always primary role for motor systems
83,93
. Our argument
for the purposes of this paper is that this approach is a natural legacy of the Dynamical Systems and Perception-Action paradigms. This
could be considered a mixture of direct and indirect influence of Turvey because references to intermediaries such as Thelen abound as
well as to Bernstein and Gibson whom Turvey and others brought to everyone’s attention back in the late 1970s.
A second continuing indirect influence of Turvey is the widespread reference to Newell’s constraints model as a “conceptual”
framework. Researchers from both the Developmental Health and Developmental Motor Neuroscience perspectives seem to incorporate
the constraints model in this way as revealed by a cursory look at the first authors of the first 100 citations (out of over 3,311 in Google
Scholar, February 9, 2024) of Newell’s 1986 article
36
. Third, although we have already stated that the Developmental Health and
Developmental Motor Neuroscience perspectives are most prominent certainly within the Kinesiological field of researchers, there are
several “pockets” of researchers who are continuing to use an overall Dynamical Systems and/or Perception-Action perspective but have
built on this foundation in different ways. We will mention four briefly, and note that the “originators/leaders” of these pockets are not,
strictly speaking, motor development researchers, but do, sometimes, work on developmental questions with others.
One pocket of researchers comes from those interested in the role of variability in movement behavior. Gregor Schöner
proposed the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis (UCM) and elaborated on it with John Scholz
94
and Mark Latash
95
. The hypothesis
demonstrates how variability can be good (allowing flexibility) when it does not affect the task goal; or bad (affecting performance) when it
does. Developmentally, we can ask when and how good variability overtakes bad variability to produce more optimal control of a
movement. Several studies have used the UCM analysis to compare typically developing children with clinical populations, but few have
studied motor development either longitudinally or cross-sectionally. One exception is Golenia and colleagues
96
who investigated
children’s reaching using UCM and cites Turvey & Fitzpatrick
71
among many other dynamical systems scientists.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
309 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
A second pocket of research also centers on the role and analysis of variability in movement behavior. Nick Stergiou began his
career using a dynamical systems approach to study leg coordination in running
97
. He then promoted non-linear dynamic methods of
analyzing variability in part to include the temporal structure of variability that is lost when using linear methods that simply characterize
the overall amount of variability
98
. He and others have used non-linear (and linear) analysis to assess postural control in young infants at
different stages of development
99
and to assess aging effects on variability during gait
100
. More recently, Stergiou has been studying self-
motion during overground locomotion in adults and references many Turvey articles
101
.
A third pocket of research built on a Dynamical Systems/Perception-action perspective centers on the work of Keith Davids and
colleagues. In contrast to the afore-mentioned uncontrolled manifold and non-linear dynamic analyses of movement variability
approaches, often utilized to answer motor control or clinical questions, the ecological dynamics approach to skill acquisition
102
is
oriented toward education and sport contexts. This approach is an integration of Ecological Psychology, Dynamical Systems,
Evolutionary Science and the Science of Complex Systems. It is clear from the references of Davids two well-cited books on Visual
Perception and Action in Sport
103
and Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: A Constraints-led Approach
104
that Turvey and colleagues have
been major influences on this work.
As a fourth pocket, Karl Newell and his students/colleagues have also continued to build on the Dynamical
Systems/Perception-Action approach both theoretically and empirically. For example, a theoretical paper on time scales in motor learning
and development
105
was based on the concepts and tools of non-linear dynamical systems and provided a principled explanation for both
short-term transitory learning and long-term developmental changes. This paper was followed by one that re-interpreted the traditional
landscape metaphor for infant motor development into a more formal model of a dynamical system that considers multiple time scales
106
.
To our knowledge, the excellent suggestions made for future infant research have not been pursued. Another line of work challenged the
information processing account that the amount of white gaussian noise in the perceptual-motor system of children’s motor behaviors
decreased with age and was associated with improved accuracy and variability
107
. Using non-linear methods to assess the structure of
variability citing Riley and Turvey’s work
108
and over a number of experiments Deutsch & Newell found evidence of a strong link between
performance and the deterministic structure of variability that was relatively independent of age and did not support the information
processing hypothesis. Unlike the other three pockets we have presented, Newell, has a record of contributing to motor development
research including work on aging. We will mention one last paper that is more in line with Professor David’s approach. In 2021, Newell
and Rovegno
109
published an article on teaching children motor skills for team games through guided discovery - using a constraints
approach. For anyone interested in advancing and understanding the development of children’s movement skills in physical activity, this
is well worth a read. The influence of Michael Turvey is a clear presence (i.e., five Turvey citations).
We mention the above four pockets of indirect influence to encourage current motor development researchers to investigate
whether any of these pockets might offer new insights or new methods for answering their own research questions. For example, the
variety of non-linear methods for assessing variability (found within each pocket) may be useful to those operating within a
Developmental Motor Neuroscience arena. For those operating within a Developmental Health arena the work from Davids and Newell
may be useful. Finally, there is one more source of direct influence to briefly discuss and that is from Turvey’s own writing after his
second conceptual paper on development with Fitzpatrick
71
mentioned at the end of Part 1. To our knowledge, Turvey, did not write any
further conceptual papers on development; nor did he conduct experiments with children. On the other hand, Turvey’s students
conducted several experiments on what we might call fundamental motor skills, although usually in adults or with theoretical models. For
example, Peck & Turvey
110
investigated the coordination dynamics of galloping using the bilateral pendulum model in adults
111
and
comparing to children’s results
112,113
. Lopresti-Goodman and colleagues
114
investigated transitions between different modes of grasping
(one or two handed) looking at body-scaled affordance perception within a dynamical system. In another study, Kinsella-Shaw and
colleagues
115
investigated interleg coordination in quiet standing in young and older adults and the effect of age and visual environment
on noise and stability. Perhaps even more relevant for those motor developers interested in developing sport skills is a paper by Fajen
116
that discussed how information and the theory of affordances both have the potential to become guiding principles of perception and
action in sport. The authors conclusion at the time was that information was being tested more than affordances and they provide
examples for the latter.
Finally, there are two reflective papers we think are worth reading because they have a clarity of hindsight as well as thoughts
for the future. In 2012, Turvey
11
responded to some questions posed to him in a paper entitled “From Physical Education to Physical
Intelligence: 50 years of Perception-Action by Michael T. Turvey”. He describes both the origin of his interest in perception and action
circa 1962 and how his thinking has been influenced over time. Curiously, he makes the argument that not much has changed in
ecological psychology since 1988 and then makes an impassioned plea that “Physics is not done yet … Only by recognizing and
addressing the incompleteness of physics can we hope to reverse the historical tendency of treating perceiving, acting, and knowing as
necessitating special explanation outside the purview of universal physical principles (p. 135-136)”
11
. In 2013, Turvey
117
expands these
remarks in “Ecological Perspective on Perception-Action: What kind of Science does it entail”. This chapter highlights principles of
Ecological Psychology in general (it applies to all phyla) and to affordances, in particular. Both papers are worth reading. We recognize
that there are many other recent papers that might attract other motor development researchers and encourage attention to these.
To summarize, in Part 2 (2000-2024) we have presented arguments both for and against the proposition that the influence of
Professor Turvey may be less prevalent than during Part 1. Certainly that may be true for those in the field of motor development
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
310 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
operating within a Motor Neuroscience or Health perspective. We have also offered arguments that suggest his influence is still present
even if some of this is indirect. From the large corpus and impact of Professor Michael Turvey’s work, it is impossible to do him justice in
one article. We also limited our scope by not including many developmental researchers from medical fields such as physical therapy and
we surely omitted many whose work was influenced by Turvey – for this we apologize. To return to our goals from the beginning: we
hope we have adequately reflected on and honored Michael Turvey’s legacy to the field of motor development; and also inspired those
currently in the field of motor development to revisit the work and legacy of Michael Turvey either directly or indirectly. As a field, our
developmental trajectory and our developmental landscape have been shaped by this great scholar. Thank you, Michael Turvey.
POSTSCRIPT
The last time we met Mike was in 2012 at the International Feldenkrais Conference where each of us were invited to speak at
the Esther Thelen Research Symposium. It feels like only yesterday that the four of us (with Claudia) repaired to the bar that evening to
chat over a beer or two. We had no idea this would be the last time we would see him. Suffice to say, we have enjoyed immensely our,
albeit infrequent, conversations over the years. Jill and Mike shared an avid affection for Arsenal Football Club and she, especially,
appreciated the “shrine” in Mike’s at-home pub. Again, we are honored to write about his large and continuing influence on motor
development research. Michael Turvey certainly influenced us.
REFERENCES
1. Clark JE, Oliveira MA. Motor behavior as a scientific field: a view from the start of the 21st century. BJMB. 2006;1:1-19. doi: 10.20338/bjmb.v1i1.3
2. Clark JE, Whitall J. What is motor development? The lessons of history. Quest.1989;41(3):183-202. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1989.10483969
3. Kelso JAS, Clark JE, Editors. The development of movement control and coordination. New York: John Wiley; 1982.
4. Kugler PN, Kelso JAS, Turvey MT. On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In Kelso JAS, Clark JE, editors. The
Development of Movement Control and Coordination. London: John Wiley; 1982. p.1-78.
5. Anderson DI. Mastering motor skills: The Contributions of Motor Learning and Motor Development to the Growth and Maturation of
Kinesiology. Kines Rev. 2024;13(1):28-41. doi: 10.1123/kr.2023-0051
6. Whitall J, Schott N, Robinson L, Bardid F, Clark JE. Motor development research: I. The lessons of history revisited (the 18
th
to the 20
th
century). J
Mot Learn Dev. 2020;8(2): 345-362. doi: 10.1123/jmld.2019-0025
7. Bernstein NA. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford University Press; 1967.
8. Gibson JJ. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1966.
9. Kugler PN, Kelso JAS, Turvey MT. 1.On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence.
In Stelmach, GE, Requin J. editors. Advances in Psychology Vol. 1 Tutorials in Motor Behavior. North-Holland; 1980. p. 3-47.
doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61936-6
10. Turvey MT. Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. In Shaw R, Bransford J. editors. Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an
Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1977. p. 211-266.
11. Turvey MT. From physical education to physical intelligence: 50 years of perception-action by Michael T. Turvey. Avant. 2012; 3(2): 128-138.
12. Turvey MT, Shaw RE, Mace W. Issues in the theory of action: Degrees of freedom, coordinative structures and coalitions. In Requin J. editor.
Attention and Performance VII. Routledge; 1978. p. 557-595.
13. Roberton MA. Longitudinal evidence for developmental stages in the forceful overarm throw. J Hum Mov Stud. 1978;4(2):167-175.
14. Seefeldt V. Perceptual-motor skills. In Montoye HJ. editor. An introduction to measurement in physical education: Growth, development, and body
composition (Vol. 2). Indianapolis, IN: Phi Epsilon Kappa;1970.
15. Eckert HM. Linear relationships of isometric strength to propulsive force, angular velocity, and angular acceleration in the standing broad jump. Res
Q. 1964;35:298-306. doi: 10.1080/10671188.1964.10613313
16. Rarick GL. editor. Physical Activity: Human Growth and Development. NY: Academic Press: 1973.
17. Malina RM. Anthropometric correlates of strength and motor performance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1975;3:249-74.
18. Clark JE. Compatibility and complexity in response decision processing. In Roberts GC, Newell KM, editors. Psychology of Motor Behavior and
Sport-1978. p.174-181.
19. Clark JE. Developmental differences in response processing. J Mot Behav. 1982 Sep;14(3):247-54. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1982.10735277
20. Thomas JR. Acquisition of motor skills: information processing differences between children and adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1980;51(1):158-73. doi:
10.1080/02701367.1980.10609281
21. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev.1975;82(4), 225-270. doi: 10.1037/h0076770
22. Wade MG. (1982). Timing behavior in children. In Kelso JAS, Clark JE. editors. The Development of Movement Control and Coordination. London:
John Wiley; 1982. p.239-251.
23. Adams JA. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. J Mot Behav. 1971;3(2):111-49. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1971.10734898
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
311 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
24. Fitch HL, Turvey MT. (1977). On the control of activity: Some remarks from an ecological point of view. In Landers DM, Christina RW. editors.
Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1977.
25. Fowler C, Turvey MT. Skill acquisition: An event approach with special reference to searching for the optimum of a function of several variables. In
G.E. Stelmach GE. editor. Information processing in motor control and learning. NY: Academic Press; 1978.
26. Wade MG, Jones G. The role of vision and spatial orientation in the maintenance of posture. Phys Ther. 1997;77(6):619-28. doi:
10.1093/ptj/77.6.619
27. Clark JE. The role of response mechanisms in motor skill development. In Kelso JAS, Clark JE, editors. The Development of Movement Control and
Coordination. London: John Wiley; 1982. p. 151-173.
28. Clark JE, Whitall J, Phillips SJ. Human interlimb coordination: the first 6 months of independent walking. Dev Psychobiol.1988; 21(5):445-56. doi:
10.1002/dev.420210504
29. Clark JE. On becoming skillful: patterns and constraints. Res Q Exerc Sport.1995;66(3):173-83. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1995.10608831
30. Clark JE. A dynamical systems perspective on the development of complex adaptive skill. In: Dent-Read C, Zukow-Goldring P, editors. Evolving
explanations of development: Ecological approaches to organism-environment systems. Washington, DC: APA Publications; 1997, p. 383-406.
31. Clark JE, Phillips SJ. A longitudinal study of intralimb coordination in the first year of independent walking: a dynamical systems analysis. Child
Dev.1993;64(4):1143-57. doi: /10.2307/1131331
32. Clark JE, Phillips SJ, Petersen R. Developmental stability in jumping. Dev Psychol. 1989;25(6):929-935. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.6.929
33. Newell KM, Barclay CR. Developing knowledge about action. In: Kelso JAS, Clark JE, editors. The Development of Movement Control and
Coordination. London: John Wiley 1982. p.175-212.
34. Turvey MT, Shaw RE. The primacy of perceiving: An ecological reformulation of perception for understanding memory. In: Nilsson LG, editor
Perspectives on memory research: Essays in honor of Uppsala University’s 500
th
Anniversary. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1979.
35. Gibson JJ, Gibson EJ. Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill; 1955.
36. Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in children: Aspects of
coordination and control. Boston, MA: Martin Nighoff; 1986. p.341-360.
37. Newell KM, Scully DM, Tenenbaum F, Hardiman S. Body scale and the development of prehension. Dev Psychobiol. 1989;22(1):1-13. doi:
10.1002/dev.420220102
38. Newell KM, Scully DM, McDonald PV, Baillargeon R. Task constraints and infant grip configurations. Dev Psychobiol. 1989;22(8):817-831. doi:
10.1002/dev.420220806
39. Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus
Nijhoff; 1986.
40. Whiting HTA, Wade MG, editors. Themes in motor development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986.
41. Davis WE. Development of coordination and control in the mentally handicapped In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in
children: Aspects of coordination and control. Boston, MA: Martin Nighoff; 1986. p. 143-157.
42. Davis WE, Kelso JAS. Analysis of “invariant characteristics” in the motor control of Down’s syndrome and normal subjects. J Mot Behav. 1982;14(3):
194-211. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1982.10735273
43. Davis WE, Burton AW. Ecological task analysis: Translating movement behavior theory into practice. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 1991;8(2):154-177. doi:
10.1123/apaq.8.2.154
44. Herkowitz J. Developmental task analysis: The design of movement experiences and evaluation of motor development status. In: Ridenour M,
editor. Motor Development: Issues and applications. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Book; 1978. p.139-164.
45. Morris GSD. Toward inclusion. Motor Development into Theory, Monograph 3. 1980:7-10.
46. Thelen E. Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human infants. Anim Behav.1979; 27:699-715. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90006-X
47. Thelen E. Determinants of amounts of stereotyped behavior in normal human infants. Ethology Sociobiol. 1980;1(2):141-150. doi: 10.1016/0162-
3095(80)90004-7
48. Thelen E. Rhythmical behavior in infancy: An ethological perspective. Dev Psychol. 1981;17(3):237-257. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.237
49. Thelen E, Fisher DM, Ridley-Johnson, R. The relationship between physical growth and a newborn reflex. Infant Behav Dev.1984;7(4):479-493. doi:
10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80007-7
50. Thelen E. Learning to walk is still an “old” problem. A reply to Zelazo (1983). J Mot Behav. 1983;15(2):139-161. doi:
10.1080/00222895.1983.10735293
51. Zelazo PR. The development of walking: new findings and old assumptions. J Mot Behav. 1983;15(2):99-137. doi:
10.1080/00222895.1983.10735292
52. Thelen E. Learning to walk: Ecological demands and phylogenetic constraints. In: Lipsitt LP. editor. Advances in Infancy Research (Vol. 3).
Norwood NJ: Albex; 1984. p.213-250.
53. Thelen E. Developmental origins of motor coordination: Leg movements in human infants. Dev Psychobiol. 1985;18(1):1-22. doi:
10.1002/dev.420180102
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
312 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
54. Thelen E. Development of coordinated movement: Implications for early human development. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor
development in children: Aspects of coordination and control. Boston, MA: Martin Nighoff; 1986. p.107-124.
55. Thelen E, Kelso JAS, Fogel A. (1987) Self-organizing systems and infant motor development. Dev Rev. 1987;7:39-65. doi: 10.1016/0273-
2297(87)90004-9
56. Thelen E, Ulrich BD. Hidden skills: a dynamic systems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev.1991;56(1):1-
104. doi: 10.2307/1166099
57. Bloch H, Bertenthal BI. editors. Sensory-motor organizations and development in infancy and early childhood. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 1990.
58. Goldfield E. (1990). Early perceptual-motor development: A dynamical systems perspective. In: Bloch H, Bertenthal BI, editors. Sensory-motor
organizations and development in infancy and early childhood. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1990. p.187-195.
59. Goldfield EC, Kay BA, Warren Jr WH. Infant bouncing: The assembly and tuning of action systems. Child Dev.1993;64(4):1128-1142. doi:
10.2307/1131330
60. Goldfield EC, Richardson MJ, Lee KG, Margetts S. Coordination of sucking, swallowing, and breathing and oxygen saturation during early infant
breast-feeding and bottle-feeding. Pediatr Res. 2006;60(4): 450-455. doi: 10.1203/01.pdr.0000238378.24238.9d
61. Adolph KE. Learning in the development of infant locomotion. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1997;62(3):1-140. doi: 10.2307/1166199
62. Adolph KE, Eppler MA, Gibson EJ. Crawling versus walking infants' perception of affordances for locomotion over sloping surfaces. Child
Dev.1993;64(4):1158-1174. doi: 10.2307/1131332
63. Corbetta D, Thelen E, Johnson K. Motor constraints on the development of perception-action matching in infant reaching. Infant Behav Dev.
2000;23(3-4):351-374. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00049
64. Jensen JL, Schneider K, Ulrich BD, Zernicke RF, Thelen E. Adaptive Dynamics of the Leg Movement Patterns of Human Infants: II. Treadmill
stepping in Infants and Adults. J Mot Behav.1994;26(4):313-324. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1994.9941687.
65. Konczak J, Meeuwsen HJ, Cress ME. Changing affordances in stair climbing: the perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults. J
Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992;18(3):691-697. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.18.3.691.
66. Reed ES. An outline of a theory of action systems. J Mot Behav.1982;14(2):98-134. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1982.10735267.
67. Reed ES, Bril B. The primacy of action in development. In: Latash ML, Turvey MT, editors. Dexterity and its development. NY: Psychology Press;
1996. p.431-451.
68. Savelsbergh G, Wimmers R, Van Der Kamp J, Davids K. The development of movement control and coordination: An introduction to direct
perception, dynamic systems and the natural physical perspective. Current Issues in Developmental Psychology: Biopsychological
Perspectives,1999: 107-136.
69. Ulrich BD, Ulrich DA. Dynamic systems approach to understanding motor delay in infants with Down syndrome. In: Savelsbergh GJP. editor.
Advances in Psychology, 97: The development of coordination in infancy. North Holland:1993. p.445-459. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)60963-2
70. Whitall J, Getchell N. From walking to running: applying a dynamical systems approach to the development of locomotor skills. Child
Dev.1995;66(5):1541-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00951.x
71. Turvey MT, Fitzpatrick P. Commentary: development of perception-action systems and general principles of pattern formation. Child
Dev.1993;64(4):1175-90. doi: 10.2307/1131333
72. Van Geert P. A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychol Rev.1998;105(4): 634-677.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.634-677
73. Piek JP. The role of variability in early motor development. Infant Behav Dev. 2002;25(4), 452-465. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00145-5
74. Fitzpatrick P, Schmidt RC, Lockman JJ. Dynamical patterns in the development of clapping. Child Dev.1996;67(6):2691-2708. doi: 10.2307/1131747
75. Haibach-Beach PS, Perreault ME, Brian AS, Collier DH. Motor learning and development. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2024.
76. Gabbard CP. Lifelong motor development (8
th
ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2021.
77. Goodway J, Ozmun JC, Gallahue DL. Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (8
th
ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones &
Bartlett; 2021.
78. Haywood KM, Getchell N. Life span motor development (7
th
ed). Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics; 2021.
79. Payne VG, Isaacs L. Human motor development: A lifespan approach (10
th
ed.). NY: Routledge; 2020.
80. Connolly KJ, Forssberg H. editors. Neurophysiology and neuropsychology of motor development. Clinics in Developmental Medicine No. 143/144.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;1997.
81. Newell KM, McDonald PV. The development of grip patterns in infancy. In: Connolly KJ, Forssberg H. editors. Neurophysiology and
neuropsychology of motor development. Clinics in Developmental Medicine No. 143/144. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p.
232-256.
82. Ulrich BD. Dynamic systems theory and skill development in infants and children. In: Connolly KJ, Forssberg H. editors. Neurophysiology and
neuropsychology of motor development. Clinics in Developmental Medicine No. 143/144. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p.
319-345.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
313 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
83. Whitall J, Bardid F, Getchell N, Pangelinan MM, Robinson LE, Schott N, Clark JE. Motor development research: II. The first two decades of the 21st
century shaping our future. J Mot Learn Dev. 2020;8(2): 363-390. doi: 10.1123/jmld.2020-0007
84. Clark JE. Pentimento: A 21
st
century view on the canvas of motor development. Kines Rev. 2017;6:232-239. doi: 10.1123/kr.2017-0020
85. Goldstein M. Decade of the brain. An agenda for the nineties. West J Med.1994;161(3):239-41. PMID: 7975560
86. Bressler SL, Kelso JAS. Coordination Dynamics in Cognitive Neuroscience. Front Neurosci. 2016;15;10:397. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00397.
87. Office of the Surgeon General (US) and National Institutes of Health (US). The Surgeon General’s call to action to prevent and decrease
overweight and obesity. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General (US). 2001.
88. Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, Garcia LE. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill
competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60(2):290–306. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
89. Galloway JC. In memoriam: Esther Thelen, May 20, 1941-December 29, 2004. Dev Psychobiol. 2005;47(2):103-7. doi: 10.1002/dev.20084.
90. Davis WE, Broadhead GD. editors. Ecological task analysis and movement. Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.
91. Thelen E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. Int J Behav Dev. 2000;24(4): 385-397. doi:
10.1080/016502500750037937
92. Blumberg MS, Spencer JP, Shenk D. Introduction to the collection 'How We Develop-Developmental Systems and the Emergence of Complex
Behaviors'. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2017;8(1-2). doi: 10.1002/wcs.1413.
93. Adolph KE, Hoch JE. Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;4;70:141-164.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102836.
94. Scholz JP, Schöner G. The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res.1999;126(3):289-306.
doi:10.1007/s002210050738.
95. Latash ML, Scholz JF, Danion F, Schöner G. Structure of motor variability in marginally redundant multifinger force production tasks. Exp Brain Res.
2001;141(2):153-65. doi: 10.1007/s002210100861.
96. Golenia L, Schoemaker MM, Otten E, Mouton LJ, Bongers RM. Development of reaching during mid-childhood from a Developmental Systems
perspective. PLoS One. 2018;23;13(2):e0193463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193463.
97. Stergiou N, Scholten SD, Jensen JL, Blanke D. Intralimb coordination following obstacle clearance during running: the effect of obstacle height. Gait
Posture. 2001 May;13(3):210-20. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(00)00101-6.
98. Stergiou N, Buzzi UH, Kurz MJ, Heidel J. Nonlinear tools in human movement. In N. Stergiou editor. Innovative Analyses of Human Movement.
Champaign IL: Human Kinetics; 2004, p. 63-90.
99. Harbourne RT, Stergiou N. Nonlinear analysis of the development of sitting postural control. Dev Psychobiol. 2003;42(4):368-77. doi:
10.1002/dev.10110.
100. Buzzi UH, Stergiou N, Kurz MJ, Hageman PA, Heidel J. Nonlinear dynamics indicates aging affects variability during gait. Clin Biomech.
2003;18(5):435-43. doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(03)00029-9.
101. Harrison SJ, Reynolds N, Bishoff B, Stergiou N, White E. Homing tasks and distance matching tasks reveal different types of perceptual variables
associated with perceiving self-motion during over-ground locomotion. Exp Brain Res. 2022;240(4):1257-1266. doi: 10.1007/s00221-022-06337-3.
102. Davids K, Araújo D, Vilar L, Renshaw I, Pinder R. (2013). An ecological dynamics approach to skill acquisition: Implications for development of
talent in sport. Talent Dev Excell. 2013;5(1):21-34.
103. Davids K, Williams AM, Williams JG. (2005). Visual perception and action in sport. London: Routledge; 2005.
104. Davids K, Button C, Bennett S. Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.
105. Newell KM, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G. Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(1):57-82. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295x.108.1.57
106. Newell KM, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G. A dynamical systems interpretation of epigenetic landscapes for infant motor development. Infant Behav Dev.
2003;26(4), 449-472. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2003.08.003
107. Deutsch KM, Newell KM. Noise, variability, and the development of children’s perceptual-motor skills. Dev Rev. 2005; 25(2):155-180. doi:
10.1016/j.dr.2004.09.001
108. Riley MA, Turvey MT. Variability and determinism in motor behavior. J Mot Behav. 2002;34(2):99-125. doi:10.1080/00222890209601934.
109. Newell KM, Rovegno I. Teaching Children's Motor Skills for Team Games Through Guided Discovery: How Constraints Enhance Learning. Front
Psychol. 2021;12:724848. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724848.
110. Peck AJ, Turvey MT. Coordination Dynamics of the Bipedal Galloping Pattern. J Mot Behav. 1997;29(4):311-25. doi: 10.1080/00222899709600018.
111. Kugler PN, Turvey MT. Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987.
112. Whitall J. A developmental study of the interlimb coordination in running and galloping. J Mot Behav.1989;21(4):409-28. doi:
10.1080/00222895.1989.10735492.
113. Caldwell GE, Whitall J. An Energetic Comparison of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Human Gait. J Mot Behav.1995;27(2):139-154. doi:
10.1080/00222895.1995.9941706.
114. Lopresti-Goodman SM, Turvey MT, Frank TD. Behavioral dynamics of the affordance "graspable". Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011;73(6):1948-65.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0151-5.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Whitall, Clark
2023
VOL.17
N.6
314 of 314
Special issue:
“In memory of Michael Turvey”
115. Kinsella-Shaw JM, Harrison SJ, Turvey MT. Interleg coordination in quiet standing: influence of age and visual environment on noise and stability. J
Mot Behav.2011;43(4):285-94. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2011.580389.
116. Fajen BR, Riley MA, Turvey MT. Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol, 2008;40(1):79-107.
117. Turvey MT. Ecological perspective on perception-action: What kind of science does it entail? In: Prinz W, Beisert M, Herwig A, editors. Action
science: Foundations of an emerging discipline. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013. p. 139-170.
Citation: Whitall J, Clark JE. (2023).!In Tribute: Reflections on the Impact of Professor Michael Turvey on Motor Development. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior,
17(6):304-314.
Editor-in-chief: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil. !
Associate editors: Dr José Angelo Barela - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; Dr Natalia Madalena Rinaldi - Federal University of Espírito Santo
(UFES), Vitória, ES, Brazil; Dr Renato de Moraes – University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Guest editor: Dr Vitor Leandro da Silva Profeta - University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.!
Copyright:© 2023 Whitall and Clark and BJMB. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No
Derivatives 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: Nothing to report.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI:!https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v17i6.419