Gross Vs Fine motor skills

[YODA]

Hi MAPers

*Disclaimer: I?m using examples of art vs. art here not to pass judgement on any particular system ? I'm just drawing comparisons using arts & training methods that I have practical experience in rather than the usual conjecture & pontificating that seems so prevalent these days.

Form personal experience & from discussions with others it would seem that one of the most notable differences in performance level that occurs when we have to apply our skills for real rather than in the controlled environment of the martial arts class is the loss of fine motor skills. An example would be methods of taking an attacker to the ground. My personal repertoire of takedown skills comes from a variety of sources, for example, there is a time and a place that I can either take a person down with a outside single leg from wrestling or an outside foot drag (Sapu Luar) from Silat. However, I find that the intricacies of the Silat method mean that a technique done 100% correctly has a very devastating & functional effect. If I only manage to do the technique 80% correctly however, it doesn't work, at all. The single leg however seems to have a much larger margin for error. Another example would be kicking methods from say Savate & Muay Thai. A round kick from Savate (Foutte) can drop an attacker very quickly if done correctly & on target. Miss by a few inches & you go from effective kick to "what was that?" The Thai kick hurts & does damage wherever it lands!

So, my point is --- Is it better to concentrate on developing big movements that cope well with a margin of error, or put the time into developing the attributes to make the more difficult & more "fine motor skill dependent" techniques work?

Of course it could just be that I'm just an uncoordinated schmuck who needs to train more

[Terry Matthes]

I would think that for the average joe moves with a small margin of error. By average joe I mean someone that is just going into MA to learn to defend themselves and only trains lightly. For someone who goes to competitions and whatnot I would say more complex techniques. Is it just me or are all the moves with a small margin of error easier to stop/counter than those which take more fine motor skill?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Beginners should learn the basics, techniques which work under pretty much any and all conditions. Then you can refine and improve as they go on until you've got the advanced techniques.

[YODA]

Advanced techniques: Aren't these just basics peformed with superior attributes?

[pesilat]

I think the statement "loss of fine motor skills" is a bit misleading. I personally prefer the phrase, "degradation of fine motor skills." They're not completely gone ... they just aren't going to come out as finely honed as in training.

I like the analogy one of my instructors uses. Let's say that a given technique is effective *only* when performed at 85% (or better) of perfection. If we train it only to that 85%, then when our fine motor skills degrade (even if they only drop 1%), then we won't be able to pull that off. If, on the other hand, we train ourselves to be able to perform that technique at 95% of perfection every time we do it, then we give ourself a 10% margin for degradation. In effect, we turn a "fine" motor skill into a "gross" (or, at least, "not-so-fine") motor skill.

This happens through repetition of proper technique ("Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.")

An analogy I like to use to illustrate this principle is with walking. To a toddler, walking is a *fine* motor skill. Over time, though, it becomes second nature ... it becomes a "gross" motor skill.

So ... "beginning" techniques should take advantage of the gross motor skills that the student already has. This will enable the student to be able to functionalize the material relatively quickly. Once the student has some functionalization, then "fine" motor skills should be introduced into training. The fine motor skills should then be worked until they become "gross" motor skills.

And, in the end, we should *always* remember that there are no guarantees. A perfectly executed right cross delivered with perfect body mechanics and placement may still just make the guy mad.

We should *always* be prepared to flow to something else.

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Mike

Originally posted by pesilat
I think the statement "loss of fine motor skills" is a bit misleading. I personally prefer the phrase, "degradation of fine motor skills." They're not completely gone ... they just aren't going to come out as finely honed as in training.

I like the analogy one of my instructors uses. Let's say that a given technique is effective *only* when performed at 85% (or better) of perfection. If we train it only to that 85%, then when our fine motor skills degrade (even if they only drop 1%), then we won't be able to pull that off. If, on the other hand, we train ourselves to be able to perform that technique at 95% of perfection every time we do it, then we give ourself a 10% margin for degradation. In effect, we turn a "fine" motor skill into a "gross" (or, at least, "not-so-fine") motor skill.

This happens through repetition of proper technique ("Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.")

An analogy I like to use to illustrate this principle is with walking. To a toddler, walking is a *fine* motor skill. Over time, though, it becomes second nature ... it becomes a "gross" motor skill.

So ... "beginning" techniques should take advantage of the gross motor skills that the student already has. This will enable the student to be able to functionalize the material relatively quickly. Once the student has some functionalization, then "fine" motor skills should be introduced into training. The fine motor skills should then be worked until they become "gross" motor skills.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this
A fine motor skill, as I understand it, would be something that takes fine control and is more likely to rely on the use of smaller muscle groups. Walking might be better considered a 'complex' motor skill, ie. it is made up of simpler motor skills, some of which may be gross, some fine. A gross motor skill is a simple movement that involves large muscle groups.

So a fine motor skill can't become a gross motor skill. They are different things. Rather, complex motor skills can become more ingrained and hence less likely to fail under pressure.

That's my understanding anyway.

In Vince Morris' book 'Rules of Combat: The Development of Warrior Tactics' he describes how these deteriorate in relation to heart rate:
115 bpm: 'loss' of fine motor skills (he doesn't define exactly what he means by 'loss')
145 bpm: loss of complex motor skills
150 bpm: enhancement of gross motor skills

Fear will rapidly increase heart-rate so that it could easily be above 150 bpm before the first punch is even thrown.

This I think echoes many people's experiences. The classic example would be in a horror film when the hero is running away from whatever creepy crawly is after him/her and fumbles with their keys when trying to get in their car/house/whatever. They may even drop them in their haste. Although this is a fictitious example I think it still demonstrates the degradation of fine and complex motor skills that people experience when they're sh*t scared. It's certainly something I've felt before now and I've seen it in others.

The lesson for me in this is threefold:
A. I try to favour techniques that rely on gross motor skills rather than fine.
B. I try to control fear and breathing in order to keep calm, keeping my heartrate under control. This way my fine and complex motor skills will hopefully be less degraded.
C. Practice lots in order to make the movements as ingrained as possible.

And, in the end, we should *always* remember that there are no guarantees. A perfectly executed right cross delivered with perfect body mechanics and placement may still just make the guy mad.

We should *always* be prepared to flow to something else.

Totally agree with that.

Mike

[pesilat]

Hm. I can't see the difference between what you call "complex" motor skills and what I call "fine" motor skills.

I think most people would agree that finding and applying finger locks is a "fine" motor skill. But I find and apply them all the time. Even in hard sparring. I haven't been in a fight since gaining that level of ability with them ... but I have no doubt that I could and would find them and apply them.

Maybe, though, it's less a matter of "perfecting" the technique and more a matter of gaining confidence in ones ability. The more confident one is, the less panic there will be. There will always be an adrenaline dump and some fear ... but maybe through training and repetition and confidence in our ability, we convince our bodies not to dump quite so much ... to measure the output, so to speak. So that, in a given situation, a trained fighter will retain more fine motor skills than an untrained fighter.

I don't know ... I'm making an educated guess based on the data you provided from Vince Morris and my own experiences.

Also ... check this page out: http://members.tripod.com/~imaware/fmotor.html

This is a non-MA article ... but I think it relates to the subject at hand.

Specifically, look at the "Self-Care Skills":[list=1][*]Buttoning[*]Lacing[*]Tying[*]Fastening Snaps[*]Zipping[*]Carrying[*]Using a screwdriver[*]Locking and unlocking a door[*]Winding a clock[*]Opening and closing jars[*]Vacuuming a rug[*]Rolling out dough or other simple cooking activities[*]Washing plastic dishes[*]Sweeping the floor[*]Dressing[*]Bathing[/list=1]

These are all defined as "fine motor skills." Many of these things are things which we, as adults, have done on a daily basis for decades. We now do them with no trouble or thought. We can do them under stress or with our heart hammering. Especially things like zipping and buttoning. People do these things all the time at gyms after a workout when their heart rates are up.

I think it's more a mental thing (i.e.: the fear) than a physical thing (i.e.: the physical exertion/heartrate) that causes the degradation of fine motor skills.

So, perhaps, training and repetition increases our confidence in our abilities which, in turn, makes it more reliable when the chips are down (because we have conditioned the mental side to not freak out).

Does that make any more sense?

Mike

[Kat]

Interesting thread, great topic
I feel that this crosses over into the my cherished topic of timing and distance,plus using the most appropriate weapon/tech at the appropriate time.Devleloping lots of power and strength is useless if you can never apply it to an opponent(as in hit the sucker)being able to put on the perfect arm bar is great but only if you can actually set up the arm. Understanding simple set ups and being able to flow into another if it fails seems to be rarely taught.

I feel that often not enough emphasis is placed on fluid body movement,I think most would call this footwork and power generation but in its KISS mode.

And then there's the mind,I agree with Persilat,the more you do it with a resisting partner the more your body understands the whole deal.Keeping the simple movement relaxed and focused with strong intent,yet able to flow on to another other movement(like geting out of there)

[YODA]

Some good thoughts so far guys - keep 'em coming.

Mike Said : So, perhaps, training and repetition increases our confidence in our abilities which, in turn, makes it more reliable when the chips are down (because we have conditioned the mental side to not freak out).

That makes sense Mike, as long as the training & repetition match the environment & level of performance of the real application.

[Scotty Dog]

An old saying I remember from my time working as an engineer

"The more complex the machine, the easier it breaks"

personaly at this point in my training I prefer the higher scuccess rate, less complex moves. That's not to say however that I'm not working towards the more complex ones, I am trying.

The thing I (personaly) don't want to do is practice a technique for months that has only got a 50% or less chance of success if I needed it, instead of a technique that I know is closer to 80%
( Pesilat, I agree a right cross may just p*ss someone off, we should always be ready to flow into something else, I thought that was what the left hook was for )

elhig

[pesilat]

The thing I (personaly) don't want to do is practice a technique for months that has only got a 50% or less chance of success if I needed it, instead of a technique that I know is closer to 80%

I don't think any techniques start out at an 80% success rate. No technique is worth anything without drilling it.

The trick is to find those things which can be brought up to 80% success rate quickly (this may differ from student to student) and train those things first so the person has something to use in a pinch. Then work on the things which take longer to develop but which, in the long run, end up being more "effective" (i.e.: efficient, reliable, etc. ... using a pretty broad definition of "effective" here).

I also agree with YODA ... the training and repetition have to match the environment & level of performance of the real application.

I don't think any training can start at that level or environment but it should be "tempered" there before we can expect it to have any chance of working in reality.

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by pesilat
Hm. I can't see the difference between what you call "complex" motor skills and what I call "fine" motor skills.

I checked my medical texts this morning but couldn't find any definitions. A quick look on the net came up with the following:

1. Fine motor skills: the website you quoted (http://members.tripod.com/~imaware/fmotor.html) defines fine motor skills as "small muscle movements: those that occur in the finger, in coordination with the eyes." Other website seem to concur with this.

See:
http://www.pointshooting.com/ssfails.htm
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/w-jb-1299.htm
http://www.mcrgo.org/waynecounty/response.htm

These sites seem interesting as they pertain to combat situations.

2. Complex motor skills: the above websites seem to agree that these are "Movements that involve a series of muscle groups requiring eye-hand coordination, precision, tracking and timing" and may also be assymetrical, eg. one hand does one thing, the other something else.

3. Gross motor skills: "The movement and action of large and/or major muscle groups. They are also referred to as strength events employing symmetrical movements. Gross motor skills are also considered cognitively simple and require very little decision making. Survival gross motor skills are typically push and pull type movements that include strikes with arms, legs and batons."

So according to these definitions I'd have to disagree with your earlier statement that fine motor skills can become gross motor skills through practice. They are by definition different things. I would agree though more and more practice can ingrain these skills (whether fine, complex or gross) so that they become almost 'hard-wired' into the brain (I think the technical term is that they become 'engrams'). They can then be performed at a lower level of cognitive functioning, leaving the higher cognitive functions of the brain to focus on other things. For example, clutch control and gear changing in a car becomes an engram. For the learner, they have to focus on it every time they do it, ie. their conscious mind has to allocate cognitive resources to changing gear at the expense of reading the road ahead, steering etc. The experienced driver doesn't really have to think about it - it is a programmed engram that occurs with minimal conscious involvement.

These are all defined as "fine motor skills." Many of these things are things which we, as adults, have done on a daily basis for decades. We now do them with no trouble or thought. We can do them under stress or with our heart hammering. Especially things like zipping and buttoning. People do these things all the time at gyms after a workout when their heart rates are up.

Whilst I haven't found a reference that states this explicitly I get the impression that it is the adrenalin dump that causes the changes in motor skills, more than the heart-rate. The increased heart-rate is another symptom of adrenalin dump and so can be used as a good indicator of the degree of adrenalin dump (this is how I read it anyway). Personal experience though does seem to suggest that raised heart-rate in itself will still lead to some degradation of fine and complex motor skills.

One of the sites I cited above states that "Fine motor skills peak at about 90 beats per minute (bpm), complex motor skills peak at about 145 bpm, and finally gross motor skills peak at 200 plus bpm." So gross motor skills actually seem to improve as stress and heart-rate go up, at least up to a point.

Maybe, though, it's less a matter of "perfecting" the technique and more a matter of gaining confidence in ones ability. The more confident one is, the less panic there will be. There will always be an adrenaline dump and some fear ... but maybe through training and repetition and confidence in our ability, we convince our bodies not to dump quite so much ... to measure the output, so to speak. So that, in a given situation, a trained fighter will retain more fine motor skills than an untrained fighter.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. The less stress we feel the less our fine and complex motor skills deteriorate.

So, given the above, I still veer towards relying primarily on gross motor skills. So rather than a pinpoint single-knuckle strike to a small and specific vital point, I prefer to bludgeon my whole forearm through the whole area. I can still hit the vital point, I'm just making it harder not to miss. So using gross motor skills doesn't mean you can't use sophisticated and effective techniques, they just don't want to be as 'fiddly'. Another interesting thing for me in reading through all this is that gross skills are more likely to be symmetrical than complex skills. So a technique in which both hands do exactly the same thing is less likely to degrade through stress. I've read this before but forgotten about it. That could have some interesting implications worth exploring.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Mike

[pgm316]

I mentioned a similar thing in the fear thread. I was talking about how many techniques seem impossible to do in a real situation when they’ve been so effective in the gym. I was talking about my own experiences, but things I said made me sound like an unskilled martial artist. After reading the information about fine and gross motor skills it all makes more sense to me now.

I could only use the more basic techniques, although they did work well. But I knew I was not in the right frame of mind to make complex blocking or grappling techniques work. All the situations I’ve been in have soon degenerated into an ugly mess with only the most basic of techniques used.

When I’ve been training I’ve been more wary of techniques which require the fine or complex motor skills, these are nearly always the ones with the lower success rate. And as mentioned, in a real situation the success rate will be greatly reduced. Needing a combination of fine moves to be exact for the move to work. Instead I’ve looked for a simpler way to get the same result, and hopefully it will have the higher success rate if I need it.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
So according to these definitions I'd have to disagree with your earlier statement that fine motor skills can become gross motor skills through practice. They are by definition different things.[/b]

OK ... my wording wasn't very accurate. But I think the principle is sound. But the reason for the improvement is in the lowered stress, not in the physical motion itself.

I would agree though more and more practice can ingrain these skills (whether fine, complex or gross) so that they become almost 'hard-wired' into the brain (I think the technical term is that they become 'engrams'). They can then be performed at a lower level of cognitive functioning, leaving the higher cognitive functions of the brain to focus on other things.

Never having thought to look up the textbook definition of "fine" and "gross" motor skills, this was my previous (context-based) definition of the terms. This is what I originally meant by "gross" becoming "fine"

Whilst I haven't found a reference that states this explicitly I get the impression that it is the adrenalin dump that causes the changes in motor skills, more than the heart-rate. The increased heart-rate is another symptom of adrenalin dump and so can be used as a good indicator of the degree of adrenalin dump (this is how I read it anyway). Personal experience though does seem to suggest that raised heart-rate in itself will still lead to some degradation of fine and complex motor skills.

The adrenaline dump is still physical. If, through training, we are able to lower our panic reflex in stressful situations and, in turn, lower the amount of adrenaline dumped, then that would allow us to still have more access to all of our motor skills.

One of the sites I cited above states that "Fine motor skills peak at about 90 beats per minute (bpm), complex motor skills peak at about 145 bpm, and finally gross motor skills peak at 200 plus bpm." So gross motor skills actually seem to improve as stress and heart-rate go up, at least up to a point.

But, when you say "peak" ... do you mean that over that heart rate, the motor skills decline ... or do they cut out? My personal experience tells me they decline after the peak ... but maybe I'm a mutant (I've been accused of it before )

So, given the above, I still veer towards relying primarily on gross motor skills. So rather than a pinpoint single-knuckle strike to a small and specific vital point, I prefer to bludgeon my whole forearm through the whole area. I can still hit the vital point, I'm just making it harder not to miss. So using gross motor skills doesn't mean you can't use sophisticated and effective techniques, they just don't want to be as 'fiddly'.

I agree with this principle completely ... and use it. But I think it's also possible to train to the point where (to stick with the vital point analogy) it's possible to hit the vital points at the optimal angle even under stress. To ingrain the angles and strikes and targeting so deeply that they happen automatically and reliably (of course, nothing will ever be perfect ... training just increases our odds of getting it right).

So, at the beginning, we learn the gross and begin refining it. But, I think it's also useful to learn the fine and begin ingraining it. In a pinch, we should still have the gross to fall back on. But if we're actually able to use the fine (i.e.: the optimal angle on the vital point) the effects of the strike may be much better than if we used the gross.

Another interesting thing for me in reading through all this is that gross skills are more likely to be symmetrical than complex skills. So a technique in which both hands do exactly the same thing is less likely to degrade through stress. I've read this before but forgotten about it. That could have some interesting implications worth exploring.

Very interesting. Never really thought about it. I've got quite a few techniques that do that ... but I never really thought about the implications in this light.

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Mike

Originally posted by pesilat

Never having thought to look up the textbook definition of "fine" and "gross" motor skills, this was my previous (context-based) definition of the terms. This is what I originally meant by "gross" becoming "fine"

I wasn't sure but I guessed that might be the case. But I just wanted to be crystal clear about the subject matter. So often I find people disagree, especially in email, simply because we're using different terminology. Clear up the terminology differences and often what seemed like major differences in opinion tend to disappear.

The adrenaline dump is still physical. If, through training, we are able to lower our panic reflex in stressful situations and, in turn, lower the amount of adrenaline dumped, then that would allow us to still have more access to all of our motor skills.

Agreed.

But, when you say "peak" ... do you mean that over that heart rate, the motor skills decline ... or do they cut out? My personal experience tells me they decline after the peak ... but maybe I'm a mutant (I've been accused of it before )

I presume it means 'decline'. I don't really see how they could reduce to zero, anyway.

I agree with this principle completely ... and use it. But I think it's also possible to train to the point where (to stick with the vital point analogy) it's possible to hit the vital points at the optimal angle even under stress. To ingrain the angles and strikes and targeting so deeply that they happen automatically and reliably (of course, nothing will ever be perfect ... training just increases our odds of getting it right).

So, at the beginning, we learn the gross and begin refining it. But, I think it's also useful to learn the fine and begin ingraining it. In a pinch, we should still have the gross to fall back on. But if we're actually able to use the fine (i.e.: the optimal angle on the vital point) the effects of the strike may be much better than if we used the gross.

Yes, I agree with that. The challenge, I suppose, is to find the right balance between fine, complex and gross. The devil is, as they say, in the detail.

Mike