Relationship Between Motor Learning and General Intelligence

The acquisition of skills is associated with the process of motor learning. We assume that its pace is determined by the abilities and levels of a wide range of neural processes, including intelligence. The content of the research was to find out the differences in the level of Motor Learning (ML) and general Intelligence (IQ) in the group of 120 boys and girls of primary school and grammar school aged 12-17 years and the subsequent identification of a possible relationship between the two indicators. The results did not show significant differences in the level of motor learning and intelligence between the genders in either age category. Correlation analysis confirmed a significant relationship between ML and IQ excluding the gender factor (r=-0.297). When gender was taken into account, the relationship was seen only in boys (r=-0.312). We note that we found a lower rate of ML in students with a higher level of intelligence. We observed the same tendencies in the girls, but insignificant.

Keywords: General intelligence; Motor skills learning; School physical education; Self-perception

Man as a human being is born to move and learns how to move effectively throughout life. From the didactic point of view, the acquisition (learning) of specifically focused movements and their improvement becomes a characteristic feature of learning. In that sense, the term ‘Motor Learning’ (‘ML’) is generally used in the field of sport and physical education. Motor learning covers a wide range of human activities and, with its results, plays an important role in the ontogenetic development of the individual. Of course, the primary credit for motor expression is motor skills. According to Fridland [1] and Levy [2], the standard description of learned motor manifestations formed only by motor abilities cannot be given in such a simplified way. According to them, motor control is rather intelligent throughout. Conceptually, Guadagnoli and Lee (2004) consider motor expression to be the result of two variables - skill level and task difficulty.

Motor learning is the process of transforming sensory inputs into subsequent motor outputs (Stanley & Krakauer, 2013). It is a complex process that does not take place in isolation, but with the participation of many objective and subjective factors. This process is not directly observable due to its complexity, but its products - i.e., skills are observable [3]. Diagnosis of the learning process is problematic because these abilities cannot be quantified very much [4]. Every motor skill is the product of a long and often strenuous process of acquiring a whole range of stimuli. Learning complex motor behaviors like riding a bicycle or swinging a golf club is based on acquiring neural representations of the mechanical requirements of movement (e.g., coordinating muscle forces to control the club) [5]. Here we provide evidence that mechanisms matching observation and action facilitate motor learning.

Gandolfo et al. [6] investigated how human subjects adapt to forces perturbing the motion of their arms. They found that this kind of learning is based on the capacity of the Central Nervous System (CNS) to predict and therefore to cancel externally applied perturbing forces. If the actual sensory feedback differs from the predicted one, the resulting prediction error is controlled by the ML by updating the internal model [7].

It is generally assumed that the motor cortex is the basis for acquiring and performing motor skills. have confirmed the role of the brain, resp. cortical-basal ganglia circuits in motion control [8]. To understand the role of the cerebellum in motor control, it is helpful to consider neuroanatomical evidence showing that distinct regions of the cerebellum are concerned with specific motor functions, giving rise to concept of “compartments” of motor functions within the cerebellum [9,10].

In the study of motor learning control, we encounter questions of the functioning of the neuromuscular system, its activation and coordination of muscles and limbs involved in the performance of motor skills, which Magill & Anderson [11] unify with the termmotor control. It includes the whole system of perceptual factors perception of oneself, and the environment, maturation, motivation, social motives, anxiety, stress and other forms of tension involved in interacting with classmates and the teacher. In the theory of motor learning we also find the term - working memory. The concept of working memory assumes that a limited capacity system temporarily stores information and thereby supports human thought processes [12]. One prevalent model of working memory comprises three components: a central executive, a verbal storage system called the phonological loop, and a visual storage system called the visuospatial sketchpad.. When realizing the movement itself, the visual model is compared with the planned movement. We observe this phenomenon e.g., at the high jumper. He visualizes his movement in advance (comparison with the model) and only then executes it by the executive body [13]. However, a prerequisite for correlation analysis is an understanding of the determining factors. While infants acquire skills through imitation and trial and error, we follow the rules in formal teaching. In supervised motor learning, where the desired movement pattern is given in task-oriented coordinates, one of the most essential and difficult problems is how to convert the error signal calculated in the task space into that of the motor command space [14]. From a conceptual point of view at ML, we also encounter behavioral theories that understand motor skills as a consequence of the manifestation of the entire spectrum of mental processes. Ivry [15] considers psychological processes to be factors that allow past experience to be used to improve motor behavior. According to Wolpert & Ghahramani [16], learning involves changes in behavior that result from interaction with the environment. It has also been shown that information on the high level and form of movements can also be obtained by observing others [17]. However, these processes are not sufficiently clarified in terms of motor learning in sport.

At present, the role of cognitive processes in motion control is also not sufficiently stressed. The important role of perception as a factor that has a significant influence on the time characteristics of the realization of the movement and thus on its overall quality is not emphasized. Horička & Šimonek [18]. Current research confirms evidence of some correlations between basic categories of motor and cognitive abilities, including complex motor skills and higher order cognitive abilities [19,20].

Taking a broader view of the position of cognition in the procedural side of movement, we must also consider the role of intelligence and a common center of control of these processes - the nervous system. According to Piaget J [21], intelligence is a form of mental organization, and the largest form of management of cognitive structures. It integrates forms of behavior and thus a large number of specific skills (speed of processes, attention, etc.).

Material and Methods

Design

Until the beginning of the research, pupils and students did not complete the thematic unit of gymnastics with selected gymnastic elements, which formed the content of the ML test. 15 boys and 15 girls from each form took part in testing the level of motor learning and intelligence. All research participants confirmed in writing their consent to their inclusion in the research and to the processing of personal data in accordance with the EU GDPR Regulation. In 3 practice classes, students performed a methodical series of exercises, exercises to master individual positions, and finally followed the combination of individual activities to demonstrate the whole movement. After each training lesson (n=3/45´), we evaluated the level of ML in boys and girls in the demonstration of learned gymnastic elements using a grade from 1 to 5, with grade 1 corresponding to the best grade and grade 5 to the worst. The gymnastic element of the pupils of the 6th form was a roll forward to the crotch stand, for the pupils of the 7th form it was a roll back to the crotch stand, for the students of the 1st form of high school it was a stand on the head and for the 2nd form students it was a cartwheel. Assessment was performed independently by 2 qualified P.E. teachers.

Participants

The monitored group for comparing the level of motor learning and intelligence were pupils of the 6th form (decimal age DA=11.78y.), 7th form (DA=12.96y.), 1st form (DA=15.94y.) and 2nd form of Secondary Grammar School in Nitra, Slovakia (DA=16.85y; Table 1).

Table 1: Basic somatometric indicators.

Explanatory notes: ES: Elementary School: SGS: Secondary Grammar School

Testing procedures

We used the [22] intelligence test to determine the level of general intelligence. It consists of 2 intelligence tests, each with 20 questions. The time limit is 20 min. to develop one test, immediately followed by another test with the same number of questions and the same time limit. The resulting score was the sum of the correct answers from both tests. The level of motor learning was evaluated using the method of professional assessment. To obtain the necessary material for the solution, we used anthropometric measurements, observation method, expert assessment.

Statistical analysis

The normality of the primary data was determined using the Shapiro-Wilk test, the degree of statistical significance by the Mann- Whitney test, and the magnitude of the differences by the Effect size method. A non-parametric Spearman correlation coefficient rs (correlation analysis) was used to determine the dependence of the quantitative features. Statistical processing of primary data was carried out using the Software IBM SPSS (version 24).

The basic characteristics of the position are given in Table 2. At the ML level, we observe relative stability and a slight decrease in values for middle-school students (girls: 1.95›1.89ML level), similarly for boys (2.24›2.19ML level). Subsequently, in older school age, this ability is dynamized in both sexes, the level of ML reaches the value of ML𝑥̅b = 2.51 in boys, and 2.42 in girls. Overall, we evaluate the level of ML in boys (ML𝑥̅b= 2.33) higher than in girls (ML𝑥̅g=2.08), the difference decreases with increasing age (Figure 1). When evaluating the material significance of the differences, we state the dominance of boys, especially in the 7th grade of primary school (Cohen´s d=2.14).

Figure 1: Motor learning level-boys vs girls.

The difference between the genders was small (p=⟨0.19 - 0.81⟩) and statistically insignificant. The hypothesis that the performance dominance of boys over girls is also reflected in ML has not been confirmed in any age category. This statement is also supported by the values of materiality of differences (Effect size) d = ⟨0.046 - 0.24⟩. Since the null hypothesis H0 and also the small effect size was confirmed, we can say with certainty that we did not notice any differences between the samples (Table 2).

Table 2: ML level in the sample of students.

Explanatory notes: ES: Elementary School: SGS: Secondary Grammar School; *: Small Effect Size

When evaluating the level of intelligence with respect to gender, on the contrary, we state a slight predominance of girls (𝐼𝑥̅g = 112.75) over boys (𝐼𝑥̅b = 112). In both sexes, from 12 years to 17 years of age, the IQ value increases continuously from the level of 107.1 to 116.4 points (boys) and from the value of 108.2 to 116.7 points (girls). This finding proves that intelligence is not dependent on gender. Gender differences in IQ levels decrease with age. Table 3 shows the values of descriptive statistics and the significance of differences-IQ in the monitored samples (Figure 2).

Figure 2: IQ level-boys vs girls.

Table 3: ML level in the sample of students.

Explanatory notes: ES: Elementary School; SGS: Secondary Grammar School; *: Small Effect Size

Also in the case of IQ analysis in relation to gender, no statistically significant difference was found between boys and girls p = ⟨0.089 - 0935⟩. The statement is also supported by low values of Effect size - Cohen´s d = ⟨-0.31 - 0.064⟩.

Differences in IQ levels were smaller between boys and girls than in the case of ML, but the fact that both indicators were measured in different units should be taken into account.

The subject of the correlation analysis was first to assess the existence and extent of a possible relationship between the factors of intelligence and motor learning regardless of the gender, and with regard to gender. The relationship between the two indicators was confirmed with the exclusion of the gender factor (rs=- 0.297, sig.<0.1), but the tightness of the relationship is low. Taking into account the gender of the probands, the relationship was confirmed in the monitored indicators only in boys (rs=- 0.312, sig.<0.5), in girls, a significant relationship was not confirmed (rs =-0.225, sig.>0.1; Table 4). Due to the extent of the monitored group (n=120), a weak dependence with a value of rs<0.3 may be statistically significant. We therefore evaluate the degree of dependence between the variables as relatively low.

Table 4: Correlation between Motor learning and Intelligence

**: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The negative polarity of correlation coefficients and their distribution indicates the antagonistic relationship of the observed indicators. The level of motor learning decreases with increasing intelligence in both genders, but we must interpret this relationship very carefully, especially in relation to the statistical degree of the relationship between these factors (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Relationship between ML and Intelligence level (boys and girls).

In the analysis of the factor in relation to gender, no significant relationship was found in the case of boys or girls. (ML rs=-0.163, sig.>0.5; IQ rs=0.071, sig.>0.5; Table 5). Thus, the observed factors are not dependent on gender, but are probably determined by other factors. The overall difference in the level and dynamics of the development of ML and IQ with respect to age is confirmed by the degree and polarity of the material significance of the differences. (Effect size; dML=1.08; dIQ=-0.46).

Table 5: Correlation between motor learning and intelligence.

Based on the hypothesis of the dominance of boys in terms of the pace of motor learning in a selected group of school population of boys and girls, the differences in favor of boys were not confirmed in any of the monitored age categories. Higher values were recorded in boys, but the differences were not statistically significant (p=⟨0.19 - 0.81⟩). In both genders, the dynamics of ML are similar, but not ascending. In the 7th year, the ES even declines slightly. The gender gap gradually decreases with increasing age. The intervals of ML values were in boys 𝑥̅= ⟨2.19– 2.51⟩, u dievčat 𝑥̅=⟨1.89-2.42⟩.

When assessing the level of IQ, the tendencies are different in terms of gender. At the age of 11-13 years, girls x ̅=⟨IQg 108.2 vs IQb 107.1⟩ slightly dominate, at the beginning of adolescence at the age of 15 again boys x ̅= ⟨IQb 114.9 vs IQg 113.9⟩ and at the age at 17 years, the differences are at least x ̅= ⟨IQb 116.4 vs IQg 116.7⟩. The differences are also statistically insignificant in the case of IQ. The relationship analysis showed only a low relationship between the parameters ML and IQ with the exclusion of the gender factor ((rs=-0.297, sig. <0.1), taking into account the gender confirmed the relationship between the parameters only in boys (rs=-0.312, sig. <0.5). We interpret the rate of motor learning in boys and girls as the IQ values decrease with increasing IQ values, and we assume that this relationship will be more pronounced at extreme IQ values. It is different from motor skills, it is limited by the cultural and social environment, while the process of motor learning is determined by teaching methods and didactics. Our results confirm that more than intellectual abilities, the pace of acquiring abilities and skills is limited by the procedural side of teaching.

Following the above facts about the theory of motor control and our findings, we assume the continuity of certain mental and motor processes, which Berendsen et al. [23] call motor intelligence. This relationship has been confirmed in many studies. Planinšec & Pišot [24] present the findings that adolescents with average intelligence performed motor coordination tasks more effectively than adolescents with below-average intelligence. Similarly, Thompson & Witryol [25] and Engelsman & Hill [26], found that individuals with lower measured IQs were more likely to show poorer motor performance than individuals with higher measured IQs. Paunescu et al. [27] found statistically significant correlation (r=0.76; n=40; p<0.001) between general intelligence and motoric intelligence specific to combat sports, in a group of subjects who do not practice performance sports. Students with higher level of general intelligence also prove superior motoric abilities within the process of motor skills development.

The results of our research did not show significant differences in the level of ML and IQ in both genders. Boys slightly dominated in ML, girls in IQ in accordance with Ramakrishnan [28], this difference decreases with increasing age. Thus, motor ontogenesis probably proceeds at a different rate than mental in relation to gender. There was also no relevant relationship between the ML level and general IQ. It was confirmed only in the group of boys, but only to a small extent. This fact could be caused by several factors: the age and performance structure of the sample, the validity of the diagnostic procedure, inappropriate time interval of training of the evaluated element, the type of intelligence detected, or even insufficient motivation. Our findings are in line with the research results by Cushing [29], who did not find any relevant relationship between motor educability (Iowa-Brace Test) and mental maturity (California test) on a sample of female school population (5th grade). However, the dynamic social development of mankind relativizes these results nowadays [30].

We consider it necessary to clarify the nature of the possible relationship of these properties in a broader context in order to improve the quality of motor learning. It is necessary to abandon the claim that skills are soulless or merely physical. On the contrary, we argue that movement is a manifestation of the association of motor functions and cognitive processes, the cultivation of which in the process of learning skills must take place simultaneously. Finally, learning is the only fast enough mechanism that allows us to cope with new tasks that are specified by societal tasks. Finally, the learn to learn “competence is also one of the 8 key competences for lifelong learning, in line with the European Commission’s Recommendation 2006/962 (OJ L 394, 2006).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. We certify that no party having a direct interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on us or on any organization with which we are associated.

1. Fridland E (2017) Skill and motor control: intelligence all the way down. Philos Stud 174(6): 1539-1560.
2. Levy N (2017) Embodied savoir‐faire: Knowledge‐how requires motor representations. Synthese 194(2): 511-530.
3. Schmidt RA (1991) Motor learning & performance: From principles to practice. Human Kinetics.
4. Velenský M (2008) Pojetí basketbalového učiva pro děti a mládež. Praha: Nakladatelství
5. Mattar AAG, Gribble PL (2005) Motor learning by observing. Neuron 46(1): 153-160.
6. Gandolfo F, Ivaldi FAM, Bizzi E (1996) Motor learning by field approximation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93(9): 3843-3846.
7. Donchin O, Rabe K, Diedrichsen J, lally N, Schoch B, et al. (2012) Cerebellar regions involved in adaptation to force field and visuomotor perturbation. J Neurophysiol 107(1): 134-147.
8. Woolley SC, Kao MH (2015) Variability in action: Contributions of a songbird cortical‐basal ganglia circuit to vocal motor learning and control. Neurosc 296: 39-47.
9. Paulin MG (1993) The role of the cerebellum in motor control and perception. Brain Behav Evol 41(1): 39-50.
10. Konczak J, Timmann D (2007) The effect of damage to the cerebellum on sensorimotor and cognitive function in children and adolescents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 31(8): 1101-1113.
11. Magill RA, Anderson DI (2014) Motor learning: concepts and applications. In: (10^th edn), McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
12. Baddeley A (2003) Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci 4(10): 829-839.
13. Pollock BJ, Lee TD (1992) Effects of the model's skill level on observational learning. Res Quart Exer Sport 63(1): 25-29.
14. Kawato M (1990) Feedback-error-learning neural network for supervised motor learning. Advanced Neural Computers, pp. 365-372.
15. Ivry R (1994) Representational issues in motor learning. In: Heuer & Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action. Academic Press, New York, USA, 2: 263-330.
16. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Flanagan JR (2001) Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends Cogn Sci 5(11): 487-494.
17. Petrosini L, Graziano A, Mandolesi L, Neri P, Molinari M, et al. (2003) Watch how to do it! New advances in learning by observation. Brain Res Rev 42(3): 252-264.
18. Horička P, Simonek J, Paška ľ (2020) Relationship between reactive agility, cognitive abilities, and intelligence in adolescent. Jou Phys Ed Sport 20(4): 2263-2268.
19. Raiola G (2017) Motor learning and teaching method. J Phys Ed Sport 17(suppl 5): 2239-2243.
20. Fels VDI, Wierike S, Hartman E, Gemser MTE, Smith J, et al. (2015) The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4-16-year-old typically developing children: A systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 18(6): 697-703.
21. Piaget J (1964) Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. J Res Sci Teach 2(3): 176-186.
22. Azzopardi G (1989) Réussissez les tests d'intelligence. Vanves: Marabout, Africa, p. 224.
23. Berendsen BM, Meeteren N, Helders P (2002) Towards assessment of "Motor Intelligence": A kick-off for debate. Adv Physiotherapy 4(3): 99-107.
24. Planinsec J, Pisot R (2006) Motor coordination and intelligence level in adolescents. Adolescence 41(164): 667-676.
25. Thompson GG, Witryol SL (2010) The relationship between intelligence and motor learning ability, as measured by a high relief finger maze. J Psychol 22(2): 237-246.
26. Engelsman BS, Hill EL (2012) The relationship between motor coordination and intelligence across the IQ range. Pediatrics 130(4): 950-956.
27. Păunescu M, Gagea G, Păunescu C, Piţigoi G, Elisabeta N (2013) Relationship between general intelligence and motor skills learning specific to combat sports. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 84: 728-732.
28. Ramakrishnan J (2018) Assessing the multiple intelligence of higher secondary students. Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research 7(2): 332-338.
29. Cushing EJ (1968) Factorial comparison of the Iowa-brace motor educability test and a test of general mental ability. University of British Columbia Library, Canada, p. 47.
30. (2006) Recommendation of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Off J Euro Union, L394/10-18.