We suggest that Feldenkrais (1947) pioneered a “contemplative” or “neurophenomenological” (Thompson et al., 2005) approach of disciplined first-person inquiry and third-person explanations in his attempt to understand human development via a neural information processing theory of movement. As with meditation (Lutz et al., 2007), rigorous first-person insights from movement practice provided Feldenkrais with insight and constraints on the kinds of representations and procedures that must be instantiated in the nervous system.
As such, we will in part rely on the ideas of
Feldenkrais as a starting point for our discussion of the mechanisms of mindful
movement practice below. We thereby do not intend to give a full account of
mindful movement practices, but selectively evaluate how mindful movement may
provide conditions for learning skills for attentional control. As with other
skills, we propose that skilled control of attention requires inhibitory and excitatory
associations between executive, sensory, and motoric representations that are
coordinated within a repertoire of procedures. Critically, learning will
generally occur in the context of existing, stable procedures, or “habits” that
arose during development and adult life (Feldenkrais, 1947). Following Feldenkrais’ suggestion, we
focus primarily on learning via differentiating novel sensorimotor skills
within the landscape of sensorimotor dependencies rather than on the extinction
of existing habits (for a similar view, see Barandiaran and Di Paolo, 2014; Di Paolo et al., 2014; for an account of extinction in
mindfulness meditation, see Vago and Silbersweig, 2012).
In summary, the
theoretical construct of a repertoire of functional procedures and the rich
characterization of stages and mechanisms of skill learning may be a novel and
constructive application of concepts from the motor skill literature with broad
applicability to more seemingly “cognitive” skills. Given our notion of
attentional and executive control as higher-level skill processes within a
sensorimotor network, we suggest that the exceptionally rich, stable sensory
feedback generated by motor practice provides ideal conditions for the
practitioner to develop skills for improved attentional and behavioral control.
Hence, while our characterization of attentional and executive skill would
imply that mindful movement practices and meditation target similar “learning
outcomes,” movement practice may build executive procedures within functions of
sensorimotor coordination as part of the movement exploration rather than via a
process of FA meditation. Finally, the domain of movement may provide not only
an effective opportunity for improving the functional coordination of
movements, goals and attention, but also yield cleanly operationalized measures
of improvements in performance of the trained motor skill—thus being highly
amenable to empiric study.
Our central hypothesis is thus that
mindful movement practice may improve executive and attentional control by
providing opportunities for learning functional coordinations of goals and
attention, and that this might be productively modeled as skill
learning (Table (Table1).1). Specifically, learners likely refine the
flexible coordination of inhibitory and excitatory associations organized
within learned action sequences or procedures. Much as in the practice of other
motor skills, learned attentional or executive skills may initially be
“declarative” or “cognitive,” but with practice become proceduralized and
ultimately automatized. At the neural level, we predict that this will—again,
as with other motor skills—be reflected in rapid changes supported by
subcortical structures, followed by consolidation at the cortical level
(primarily in motor, prefrontal and posterior parietal regions), with a gradual
decrease in prefrontal activation as attentional skill develops (Ungerleider et
al., 2002; Robertson, 2009, provide neural accounts of motor skill
learning) In a mature skill, functional procedures are automatically and
efficiently engaged in appropriate contexts, which would also be observable as
a gradual reduction in reaction times or reduction in error (Fitts and Posner, 1967; MacKay, 1982; Beilock and Carr, 2004). In the limit, however, “overlearned”
skills become inflexible, and transfer to novel contexts is reduced (Karni et
al., 1995; Bapi et al., 2006). While we propose multiple potential
neural mechanisms below (all of which require further investigation), we also
argue from a computational level that if gains from motor practice are to
transfer to classroom behavior or laboratory tests of attentional control, then
some part of what is learned must remain sufficiently abstract to apply across
these various contexts. Formally, if higher-order skills are learned under conditions
of variability and uncertainty, this may yield “structural” learning that
facilitates sharing procedures across tasks. Following Marr (1982) this specification of a computational
criterion—here, the structural learning of abstract, transferrable skills for
attention and goal-based executive control—is a critically important (though
often underdeveloped) component of our theory of attentional skill.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento