Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:33:17.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and Extragenetic Variance In Motor Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Dan Q. Marisi
Dan Q. Marisi*
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
*
Department of Physical Education, McGill University, 475 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1S4, Canada

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A simple additive model of genes plus environment, based on intrapair similarities observed in 35 MZ and 35 like-sexed DZ twin pairs, was used to estimate the relative contribution of genetically controlled phenotypic variance in psychomotor individuality. Subjects practiced 50 trials on a pursuit rotor apparatus under a 20-sec/20-sec, work-rest schedule with a 30 min rest pause allowed between trials 30 and 31. Analyses of the data disclosed that a greater proportion of genetic factors, as opposed to nongenetic factors, appears to account for existing individual differences in motor performance among individuals subject to similar environmental conditions. The strength of this genetic control, however, systematically diminished throughout the course of practice obeying a monotonie trend over trials.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 26 , Issue 3-4 , October 1977 , pp. 197 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1977

References

REFERENCES

Ammons, R.B., Arrimons, C.H. 1970. Décrémentai and related processes in skilled performance. In Smith, L.E. (ed.): Psychology of Motor Learning. Proceedings of C.I.C. Symposium on Psychology of Motor Learning, University of Iowa, 10, 1969. Chicago: Athletic Institute.Google Scholar
Block, J.B. 1968. Heredity components in the performance of twins on the WAIS. In Van-denberg, S.G. (ed.): Progress in Human and Behavior Genetics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Brody, D. 1937. Twin resemblances in mechanical ability with references to the effects of practice on performance. Child Dev., 8: 207–216.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H.J., Prell, D.B. 1951. The inheritance of neuroticism, and experimental study. J. Ment. Sci., 97: 411–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gedda, L., Milani-Comparetti, M., Brenci, G. 1964. A preliminary report on research made during the games of the 17th Olympiad, Rome, 1960. In Jokl, E. and Simon, E. (eds.): International Research in Sports and Physical Education. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Hays, W.L. 1963. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. Google Scholar
Hirata, K. 1966. Physique and age of Tokyo Olympic champions. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 6: 207–222.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K.J. 1929. The relative effect of nature and nurture influences on twin differences. J. Educ. Psychol., 20: 241–248.Google Scholar
Jensen, A.R. 1967. Estimation of the limits of heritability of traits by comparison of monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 58: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jinks, J.L., Fulker, D.W. 1970. Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of human behavior. Psychol. Bull., 73: 311–349.Google Scholar
Kerlinger, F.N. 1967. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. 1933. Twin resemblances in motor skills, and the effect of practice thereon. J. Genet. Psychol., 42: 70–79.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. 1962. Psychological Statistics [2nd Ed., pp. 147 and 296–301]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Google Scholar
Mizuno, T. 1965. Similarity of physique, muscular strength and motor ability in identical twins. Bulletin, Faculty of Education, 1: 190–191. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Nichols, R.C. 1965. The National Merit twin study. In Vandenberg, S.G. (ed.): Methods and Goals in Human Behavior Genetics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, R.C., Bilbro, W.C. 1966. The diagnosis of twin zygosity. Acta Genet. Med. Gemellol., 16: 327–352.Google Scholar
Noble, C.E. 1969. Race, reality and experimental psychology. Perspect. Biol. Med., 13: 10–30.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. 1938. Experimental studies of physical fitness in relation to age. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. Einschl. Arbeitsphysiol., 10: 251–328.Google Scholar
Scarr, S. 1966. Genetic factors in activity motivation. Child Dev., 663–673.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, S.G. 1962. How stable are heritability estimates? A comparison of 6 anthropometric studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 20: 331–338.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, S.G. 1966. Contributions of twin research to psychology. Psychol. Bull., 66: 327–352.Google Scholar
Wilde, G.J.S 1970. An experimental study of mutual behavior imitation and person perception in MZ and DZ twins. Implications for an experimental-psychometric analysis of heritability coefficients. Acta Genet. Med. Gemellol., 19: 273–279.Google Scholar
Williams, L., Hearfield, V. 1973. Heritability of a gross motor balance task. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Health Phys. Educ. Recréat., 44: 109–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Winer, B.J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar