This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville]

On: 26 December 2014, At: 00:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

The Influence of Task Constraints on the Glenohumeral

Horizontal Abduction Angle of the Overarm Throw of Novice
Throwers
a a a a a
Casey M. Breslin , John C. Garner , Mary E. Rudisill , Loraine E. Parish , Paul M. St. Onge ,
a a
Brian J. Campbell & Wendi H. Weimar
a
Department of Health and Human Performance , Auburn University
Published online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Casey M. Breslin , John C. Garner , Mary E. Rudisill , Loraine E. Parish , Paul M. St. Onge , Brian J. Campbell &
Wendi H. Weimar (2009) The Influence of Task Constraints on the Glenohumeral Horizontal Abduction Angle of the Overarm Throw of
Novice Throwers, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80:2, 375-379, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2009.10599573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599573

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
©2009 by the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 375–379
The Influence of Task Constraints on the Glenohumeral
Horizontal Abduction Angle of the Overarm Throw of Novice
Throwers
Casey M. Breslin, John C. Garner, Mary E. Rudisill, Loraine E. Parish, Paul M. St. Onge,
Brian J. Campbell, and Wendi H. Weimar
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 00:27 26 December 2014
Key words: shoulder, throwing, young children
T he action of the throwing arm during the develop-
ment of the mature overarm throwing pattern has
garnered much attention in recent years. Many of these
studies have incorporated Newell’s (1986) develop-
mental model into the description of the organismic
(e.g., Halverson, Roberton, & Langendorfer, 1982; Lan-
gendorfer & Roberton, 2002) and/or environmental
constraints placed upon the thrower (e.g., Thomas &
French, 1985; Thomas, Michael, & Gallagher, 1994).
According to Newell, three types of constraints—the
organism, environment, and task—must be considered
when investigating factors related to motor development
and learning. These factors and their interactions are
included in Newell’s triangular model as key sources of
constraint when examining motor development at any
age. Constraints are usually defined as facilitative chan-
neling of movement, or limitations thereof, implying that
constraints either encourage or limit motor development
depending on the characteristics of the constraints (Hay-
wood & Getchell, 2005).
Organismic constraints involve the genetic makeup
and an individual’s unique characteristics, such as height,
limb length and mass, attentional focus, motivation, and
arousal level. Because of organismic constraints, people
Submitted: December 11, 2006
Accepted: March 28, 2008
Casey M. Breslin, John C. Garner, Mary E. Rudisill, Loraine
E. Parish, Paul M. St. Onge, Brian J. Campbell, and Wendi
H. Weimar are with the Department of Health and Human
Performance at Auburn University.
RQES: June 2009 375
Breslin.indd 375
Breslin, Garner, Rudisill, Parish, St. Onge,
Research Campbell,Development
Note—Motor and Weimar
performing the same task in identical environments
may achieve various degrees of success (Haywood &
Getchell, 2005). Environmental constraints include those
that describe the setting in which an organism lives and
thrives. For example, light, temperature, humidity level,
air quality, nutritional opportunities, laws, cultural beliefs
and practices, and normative views regarding acceptable
behavior represent environmental constraints (Haywood
& Getchell). Task constraints are controls that are placed
upon the execution of the skill, such as skill criteria, equip-
ment used, and the task itself (Haywood & Getchell).
Only a few studies have accounted for the third
axiom of Newell’s model, which is the task constraint
(Cross, 2004; Southard, 1998). For instance, several stud-
ies have investigated how various populations of children
respond to different instructional strategies when learn-
ing the skill of throwing (e.g., Goodway & Branta, 2003;
Goodway, Rudisill, & Valentini, 2002; Valentini & Rudisill,
2004a, 2004b), but the majority of the studies have not
reported or described the size or weight of the throwing
implement. The failure to report and/or standardize
task constraints, such as ball size and weight, makes
comparisons across studies difficult, due to evidence that
the size and weight of the ball influence the mechanics
of overarm throwing (Alexander, 1991; Cross; 2004).
Therefore, this study aimed to determine the influence
of task constraints on the horizontal abduction angle of
the overarm throw of novice throwers. Specifically, the
study attempted to determine whether increasing the
inertial components of the distal portion of the throw-
ing arm forces the arm into an increased glenohumeral
horizontal abduction angle.
In an attempt to define the effects of task constraints
on the overarm throwing motion, Alexander suggested
6/17/2009 4:48:18 PM
 Breslin, Garner, Rudisill, Parish, St. Onge, Campbell, and Weimar

that more massive and larger objects elicit a more nearly
simultaneous, rather than sequential, movement pattern
(Alexander, 1991). Southard (1998) and Cross (2004)
expanded on Alexander’s postulation by investigating the
influence of different inertial properties on humeral lag in
adult throwers. Specifically, Southard found that mature
throwers were more susceptible to external increases in
segment mass of the throwing limb (Southard, 1998).
Cross (2004) continued this line of research by examin-
ing the maximum object speeds and release angles of
different masses and found that more massive objects are
thrown at higher angles to the horizontal than less mas-
sive objects (Cross, 2004). Therefore, previous research
on adults leads to the hypothesis that throwing objects
of different size and mass will influence specific pattern
parameters (i.e., horizontal angle) in children.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 00:27 26 December 2014
considered novice throwers based on researcher observa-
tion during outdoor physical play. Informed consent was
obtained from parents, and assent was obtained from the
children, prior to data collection.
Equipment
A digital camera (Canon GL2, Canon USA, Inc.,
Itasca, IL), filming at 30 Hz, was located 8 feet (2.4 m)
above the ground. It was positioned above the partici-
pants and into the transverse plane along the polar axis.
Video data were analyzed using video analysis software
(Dartfish Motion Analysis Corporation, Marietta, GA).
The software allowed the researchers to determine the
humeral angle as defined previously. The glenohumeral
horizontal abduction angle was measured at one frame
before initiation of horizontal adduction of the throwing

of three baseballs and softballs of different masses (.113 arm, as this would be the position of maximum glenohu-
kg, .198 kg, .340 kg) and regulation diameters (22.86 and meral posterior movement in the transverse plane (see
30.48 cm, respectively) on the glenohumeral horizontal Figures 1 and 2).
abduction angle of an overarm throw performed by
young children who were novice throwers. Glenohumeral Design
horizontal abduction angle was operationally defined as
A within-participants design was implemented to de-
a relative angle greater than 180° between the humerus
termine whether the glenohumeral horizontal abduction
and the trunk (determined by a line from the lateral epi-
angle differed when balls of various sizes and masses were
condyle to the acromion and the line between the acromi-
thrown. All participants were asked to throw baseballs and
ons). Based on past research using adult throwers, it was
softballs of three different masses twice each. The six balls
hypothesized that the glenohumeral horizontal abduc-
of different sizes and masses were randomly assigned to
tion angle would differ with the balls of various sizes and
avoid learning effects.
masses. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the increased
mass of the ball would increase the mass (inertia) of the
hand, making the hand-ball system more resistant to a
change in its motion, from the drawing back of the arm,
to the ballistic movement forward. Theoretically, a more
massive hand would force the more proximal segments
to proceed posteriorly during the cocking phase of the
Glenohumeral horizontal
throw. This increased posterior movement would result abduction angle
in an increased angle between the trunk and upper arm,
indicating a greater glenohumeral horizontal abduction
angle. In addition, it was speculated that the increased c
size of the ball would produce less glenohumeral hori-
zontal abduction angle, because the participants would a
move the object closer to the midline and adopt a more b
pushlike (simultaneous) motion (Alexander, 1991).
Head

Method

Participants
The participants in this study were 15 African Ameri-
can preschool-age children (M = 4.69 years, SD = 0.64),
consisting of 7 girls and 8 boys enrolled in an accredited
daycare serving low income children and located in a
small city in the southeastern U.S. All children were
Figure 1. Visual display of the angle created during Dartfish
data analysis. The labels in the drawing indicate the ana-
tomical landmarks used to construct the angle measured:
a. = acromion of the nonthrowing arm; b. = acromion of the
throwing arm; and c. = lateral epicondyle of the throwing
arm. The arrow on the left indicates the direction of the throw.

376 RQES: June 2009

Breslin.indd 376 6/17/2009 4:48:19 PM


Procedures
During data collection, each participant was inde-
pendently assessed using the following procedures. First,
to determine throwing arm, the researcher held a ball in
the palm of the hand at the participant’s midline, and the
hand the participant used to reach for the ball was the arm
with which the child threw during data collection. The
child was then outfitted with reflective markers placed on
the acromion processes of both scapulas and the lateral
epicondyle of the elbow of the throwing arm. This cre-
ated lines representing the humerus (lateral epicondyle
to acromion of throwing arm) and the trunk (acromion
to acromion). These lines formed the humeral angle
and were used to represent the glenohumeral horizontal
abduction angle. If the humerus broke the plane of the
body (acromion to acromion) posteriorly, then an angle
greater than 180o was created, indicating a more mature
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 00:27 26 December 2014
glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle. This angle
was chosen because it was hypothesized that increasing
the inertial components of the hand would cause a larger
glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle at front facing,
thus indicating a more mature overarm throwing pattern.
Time was not used as a dependent measure, because the
researchers felt that segmental position was a stronger
indicator of the influence of environmental constraints
than time.
After the reflective markers were securely in place,
the participant was asked to stand in the camera view. A
research assistant then demonstrated a mature overarm
throw and asked the participant to throw the ball “hard
as you can.” The participant performed three practice
trials with a .071 kg baseball and then was asked to throw
all balls in random order, with the sequence repeated for
Figure 2. Visual display of the camera view. The labels in the
drawing indicate the marker location of the anatomical land-
marks used to construct the angle measured: a. = acromion
of the nonthrowing arm; b. = acromion of the throwing arm;
and c. = lateral epicondyle of the throwing arm. The arrow on
the left indicates the direction of the throw.
RQES: June 2009
Breslin.indd 377
Breslin, Garner, Rudisill, Parish, St. Onge, Campbell, and Weimar
a total of two trials for each ball. The humeral angle ob-
tained at each size and mass was collapsed before statisti-
cal analysis. Each trial was reviewed during capture, and in
the event that the participant’s throw was not captured by
the camera, he or she was repositioned and immediately
instructed to throw that same ball again.
Results
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver-
sion 13 statistical software package (SPSS, Inc., Chicago,
IL). Statistical significance was established a priori at α
= .05. The glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle
was analyzed using a 2 (ball size: baseball, softball) x 3
(ball mass: .113 kg, .198 kg, .340 kg) within-participants
repeated measures analysis of variance. There were no
significant changes seen in the humeral angle of the
participants with the changes in size (p = 0.962, power =
.050), mass (p = 0.683, power = .102), or an interaction
between the two (p = .778, power = .071), suggesting
that ball mass and size did not affect the glenohumeral
horizontal abduction angle. The variable of interest was
averaged across participants, producing the following
mean values: .113 kg baseball = 144.12° + 18.21°; .198 kg
baseball = 140.14° + 17.27°; .340 kg baseball = 144.60° +
13.66°; .113 kg softball = 142.69° + 14.67°; .198 kg softball
= 142.91° + 15.08°; and .340 kg softball = 143.53° + 26.30°.
See Figure 3 for a graphical representation of the mean
humeral angle as measured by relative horizontal shoul-
der abduction as a function of ball size and mass.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect
of the ball size and mass on the glenohumeral horizontal
abduction angle of novice throwers. The novice throw-
ers in the present study failed to achieve demonstrable
change in the glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle,
which may be attributed to the relatively small angle be-
tween the trunk and the upper arm produced by novice
throwers. This is consistent with the implication that there
will be more of a pushlike simultaneous motion in these
throwers, rather than the sequential whiplike motion
typically demonstrated with a temporal and spatial lag
in the forward movement of the humerus. In addition,
the dramatic variability of the performance of the novice
throwers, demonstrated by the high standard deviations
of the relative glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle,
further indicates that a consistent throwing pattern had
not yet been achieved by the participants. This may
have been the result of inconsistencies in ball size, grip
size, grip strength, and/or the restriction of degrees of
377
6/17/2009 4:48:19 PM
 Breslin, Garner, Rudisill, Parish, St. Onge, Campbell, and Weimar
freedom of the participant in an attempt to perform an
overarm throw under new task constraints.
Specifically, we hypothesized that the increased mass
of the ball would increase the mass (inertia) of the hand,
making the hand-ball system more resistant to a change
in its motion, from the drawing back of the arm, to the
ballistic movement forward, resulting in an increased
glenohumeral horizontal abduction angle, which may be
one of the defining characteristics of humeral lag. The
results failed to statistically support the aforementioned
hypothesis. This finding, while counterintuitive, enhances
the generalizability of previous literature. The results of
the current study suggest that previous findings regarding
the development of the overarm throw can be compared
across studies in which implements of different size and
weight were thrown. However, the findings of the pres-
ent study do not support previous research by Southard
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 00:27 26 December 2014
(1998) and Cross (2004), which suggested that throwing
motions are changed with the addition of an external
mass, because altering the inertial properties of the sys-
tem changes the kinematics of the overarm throw, per
the suggestions of Alexander (1991). It appears that the
findings described by Southard (1998) and Cross (2004),
which included mature throwers, cannot be generalized
to novice throwers.
Relative Shoulder Horizontal Abduction vs. Ball Size & Mass
180
150
120
Relative Humeral Angle
90
60
30
0
.113 kg BB .198 kg BB
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the mean humeral angle as measured by relative horizontal shoulder abduction as
a function of ball size and mass.
378 RQES: June 2009
Breslin.indd 378
As throwers grow, the inertial properties of the limb
segments change, making the limbs more resistant to
changes in rotational motion. The present study at-
tempted to elicit this resistance to changes in motion by
increasing the inertia of the novice thrower’s arm by in-
creasing the weight of the hand and, in turn, distributing
larger mass farther away from the axis of rotation. These
conclusions should be read with some caution. As is the
case with most research conducted on novice performers,
the variability in performance based on standard devia-
tions was considerable. In addition, these novice throw-
ers demonstrated an extremely limited glenohumeral
horizontal abduction angle, suggesting that the cocking
phase of the throw was not developed enough to gener-
ate the momentum required for increased inertia of the
hand to draw the arm back.
Although the observed statistical power was low, it is
unlikely that a larger sample size would have yielded dif-
ferent results. Regardless of the object thrown, the skill
level of the participants lacked the mechanical capability
to exploit the inherent inertial properties of balls with
increased size and mass.
Future research should advance the understanding
of the role of inertial properties that contribute to the
overarm throwing pattern of both mature and novice
Standard Deviation
Mean
.340 kg BB .113 kg SB .198 kg SB .340 kg BB
Ball Size & Mass
6/17/2009 4:48:19 PM

performers. Care should be taken in future research to
report the size and mass of all throwing implements in any
study that incorporates throwing motion. This contribu-
tion will afford future researchers the ability to directly
compare and analyze research across methodological
and theoretical constructs. In addition, attention should
be given to the method by which this inertial influence
is measured. Specifically, the role of the glenohumeral
horizontal abduction should be further analyzed as a nec-
essary component of the current understanding of both
temporal and spatial humeral lag. Furthermore, future
research should attempt to identify the qualifying vari-
ables, such as glenohumeral internal/external rotation,
horizontal adduction/abduction, or humeral angle, that
provide a consistent measure of the kinematic parameters
of the overarm throw. Conceptually, in order to effectively
and easily compare research across populations, there
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 00:27 26 December 2014
is a need to develop a single variable that combines the
overall actions in each of the planes of motion and reli-
ably quantifies the change in kinematics.
References
Alexander, R. (1991). Optimum timing of muscle activation
for simple models of throwing. Journal of Theoretical Biol-
ogy, 150, 349–372.
Cross, R. (2004). Physics of overarm throwing. American Journal
of Physics, 72, 305–312.
Goodway, J. D., & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill
intervention on fundamental motor skill development of
disadvantaged preschool children. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 74, 36–46.
Goodway, J. D., Rudisill, M. E., & Valentini, N. C. (2002). The
influence of instruction on catching: A developmental
approach. In J. E. Clark (Ed.), Motor development: Research
and reviews (Vol. 2; pp. 96–119). Reston, VA: National As-
sociation for Sport and Physical Education.
Halverson, L. E., Roberton, M. A., & Langendorfer, S. (1982).
Development of the overarm throw: Movement and ball
RQES: June 2009 379
Breslin.indd 379
Breslin, Garner, Rudisill, Parish, St. Onge, Campbell, and Weimar
velocity changes by seventh grade. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 53, 198–205.
Haywood, K., & Getchell, N. (2005). Lifespan motor development
(4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Langendorfer, S. A., & Roberton, M. A. (2002). Individual
pathways in the development of forceful throwing, Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 245–256.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coor-
dination. In M. G. Wade and H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor
development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp.
341–361). Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff.
Southard, D. (1998). Mass and velocity: Control parameters
for throwing patterns. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 69, 355–367.
Thomas, J. R., & French, K. E. (1985). Gender differences
across age in motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 98, 260–282.
Thomas, J. R., Michael, D., & Gallagher, J. D. (1994). Effects
of training on gender differences in overhand throwing:
A brief quantitative literature analysis. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 65, 67–71.
Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. E. (2004a). Effectiveness of an
inclusive mastery climate intervention on the motor skill
development of children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
21, 285–294.
Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. E. (2004b). Motivational climate,
motor-skill development, and perceived competence: Two
studies of developmentally delayed kindergarten children.
Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 23, 216–234.
Author’s Note
This article is based on an abstract presented at the 2006
North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and
Physical Activity, Denver, CO. We thank J. Ross Zorn for
his assistance with data collection and Mark G. Fischman
for his help in editing the manuscript. Please address
all correspondence regarding this article to Casey M.
Breslin, 2050 Memorial Coliseum, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL, 36849-5323.
E-mail: breslcm@auburn.edu
6/17/2009 4:48:20 PM