home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!FAC.ANU.EDU.AU!ANDALING
- Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
- Message-ID: <9301260157.AA26977@fac.anu.edu.au>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:57:26 EST
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
- Subject: Schmidt (1982, 1988)
- Lines: 45
-
- [Avery Andrews 930126.1250]
-
-
- From reading around in Schmidt (1982, 1988), _Motor Control and
- Learning, A Behavioral Emphasis_, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign
- IL, a few general conclusions.
-
- One is that he seems like a pretty fair and open minded person, in spite
- of the rather nasty tone of a lot of my comments recently. In particular,
- I think there's a substantial chance that he might be sympathetic to
- the ideas that
-
- a) people should pay more attention to the quantitative aspects of
- continuous feedback systems
-
- b) `Motor Programs' might work by specifying sequences or `contours'
- (another desparate attempt to get away from event-based
- terminology) of perceptual reference levels.
-
- On the other hand I'm sure he would want more detailed exemplification
- of (b) than I can at this moment provide - e.g. hi level control of the
- kind Rick Marken illustates in the spreadsheet demo, but simulating the
- performance of a sensible task in an accurately simulated environment.
-
- Overall the book provides overwhelming evidence that PCT is different
- from prevailing ideas about motor control, although it also contains
- discussions of lots of data that looks pretty challenging to PCT.
-
- Although Schmidt does seem to have considerable awareness of the
- potential of continuous control, and the wrong-headedness of some
- of the criticisms of it (and the `wineglass effect' discussed on
- pp. 175-176 of the 1988 edition), the text as a whole certainly
- would not help a qualitatively-oriented person to get any sense of
- how continuous control works. (and it definitely ain't written for
- math nerds), and the presentation would tend to reinforce the
- event-based conception in the mind of a student, I think.
-
- However, Schmidt should not be held responsible for the sins of
- Jordan & Rosenbaum in Posner (1989) (_Foundations of Cognitive
- Science_) .. it's pretty clear that they didn't read, or at
- least pay attention to, the material in pp. 212-227 (1982 edition).
- (Professionals ought to know that they ought to look at the whole
- book, among other things.)
-
- Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
-