NR <strong>57</strong> <strong>2012</strong>ANTROPOMOTORYKAFUNCTIONAL AND DYNAMIC ASYMMETRYIN BOYS AGED 10–12 YEARS(CONTINUOUS RESEARCH)ASYMETRIA FUNKCJONALNA I DYNAMICZNACHŁOPCÓW W WIEKU 10–12 LAT(BADANIA CIĄGŁE)Marta Wieczorek** PhD, University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw, PolandKey words: functional asymmetry, dynamic asymmetry, boysSłowa kluczowe: asymetria funkcjonalna, asymetria dynamiczna, chłopcySUMMARY • STRESZCZENIEIntroduction. Significant changes in motor and psychophysical development are observed during schoolyears. Lateralization is one of the developmental regularities. A lateralization evaluation is essential in cases ofdiagnostics in children with speech dysfunctions, motor clumsiness, and problems with reading and writing.Aim of the study. The cognitive aim is to observe and compare the functional and dynamic lateralizationin boys aged 10 to 12 years during research carried out on the same group of subjects. The practical aim ofthis paper is to expand the teachers’ knowledge on lateralization, which is important for normal developmentof human beings.Material and methods. The research was carried out on a group of 30 boys and was carried out for 3 consecutiveyears. The first phase of the research was carried out when children were 10 years old (2006). Thenext tests were carried out in 2007 and 2008. The Wroclaw Asymmetry Test, by Koszczyc and Sekita, was usedduring the research.Results. When we observed changes in functional and dynamic lateralization that occurred during thetwo years, we can state that there were changes in functions of tested motor and sense organs and the samechanges in determined profiles. Changes in dynamic lateralization of motor capabilities were not observed.Conclusions. Showing that the lateralization process in the investigated group of boys aged 10 to 12 yearstakes place enables us to observe it, to diagnose it, and to employ a therapy, if necessary, to avoid developmentalabnormalities. Physical education teachers are very important, since they can stimulate this processthrough suitably selected exercises and games involving physical movement.Wstęp. W okresie nauki szkolnej obserwuje się u dzieci znaczące zmiany w rozwoju fizyczno-psychicznomotorycznym.Do prawidłowości tego okresu rozwoju zalicza się lateralizacja, której ocena jest niezbędna zwłaszczado właściwego zdiagnozowania uczniów wykazujących zaburzenia mowy, zaburzenia motoryki czy też trudnościw uczeniu się czytania i pisania.Cel pracy. Celem poznawczym było rozpoznanie, jakie zmiany zachodzą w asymetrii funkcjonalnej i dynamiczneju chłopców między dziesiątym a dwunastym rokiem życia w aspekcie badań ciągłych tej samej grupy.Celem praktycznym pracy było wzbogacenie stanu wiedzy na temat znaczenia lateralizacji w prawidłowym rozwojuczłowieka.Materiał i metody. Badanie, którym objęto trzydziestoosobową grupę chłopców, było prowadzone przez trzylata. Pierwszy etap zrealizowano, gdy dzieci miały dziesięć lat (w 2006 roku). Kolejne etapy badania przeprowa-– 73 –
Marta Wieczorekdzono w 2007 i 2008 roku. Do ich realizacji posłużono się Wrocławskim Testem Asymetrii autorstwa Koszczycai Sekity.Wyniki. W opisie zmian asymetrii funkcjonalnej i dynamicznej, jakie stwierdzono u badanych chłopców ciągudwu lat, wykazano zmiany w zakresie ukierunkowania badanych narządów ruchu i zmysłu i tym samym w zakresiewystępowania profili ustalonych. Nie stwierdzono natomiast zmian poziomu asymetrii dynamicznej badanychzdolności motorycznych.Wnioski. U osób w wieku 10–12 lat proces lateralizacji jest w toku, co umożliwia jego obserwację, szczegółowądiagnozę i w razie konieczności – wdrożenie terapii, zapobiegającej utrwalaniu się nieprawidłowości rozwojowych.Ważną rolę mają w tej profilaktyce do spełnienia także nauczyciele wychowania fizycznego, którzy przez za pomocąodpowiednio dobranych ćwiczeń i zadań ruchowych mogą skutecznie stymulować ten proces.IntroductionThe notions of symmetry and asymmetry are inherentto human existence. They seem to be inseparable, yetat the same time they are mutually opposing concepts.Since ancient times symmetry has been present in theartistic work of primitive peoples and in early historicalpainting; it was also a vital element of Egyptian, ancientand medieval art, as well as religious painting. Thoughasymmetry was less frequently used in arts, to moreoutstanding individuals it seemed to be mysterious, disparate,engaging, and curious. In modern times, however,the issues of symmetry and asymmetry arouseinterest not merely in terms of aesthetics. As for man,we know that asymmetry in the human, body both morphologicallyand functionally, is considered a developmentalregularity; the process leading to its emergence,defined as lateralization, is one of the aspects and atthe same time factors in the normal motor developmentin children [1, 2, 3]. Lateralization refers to the propertiesof the human body situated between morphologyand function. This is a process closely linked withthe predominance of one cerebral hemisphere in controlof certain human activities, and it is the outcomeof anatomical and physiological brain asymmetry. Itsdevelopment depends on the maturation of brain tissueand neural pathways and takes place parallel withmaturation of the central nervous system [4]. The firstsymptoms of predominance, which pertain to the hand,may already be observed in infants beginning from theages of 6 to 7 months. Predominance of one hand overthe other becomes clear in many children about 4 yearsold. As a rule, however, lateralization of motor activitiesin hands becomes established between the ages of 6 to7 years, to finally becoming developed at the age of 12years. Concurrently, and parallel to development of lateralizationof motor activities, lateralization in visual andauditory perception is also developed. After the age of12, the majority of children present determined lateralizationin relation to the hand, eye, and foot, which isconnected with the level of CNS development, and thuscerebral hemispheric specialization. With respect tothese facts, undetermined asymmetry is not consideredto be a developmental pathology in children who are12 years old. Only its diagnosis after this age indicatesretardation or developmental disorders [4, 5]To evaluate lateralization, when this process is finishedor when we assess its status at a given developmentalstage, we refer to the notion of asymmetry, predominance,or sidedness. Body asymmetry in humansmay be seen in many aspects, yet in physical culturesciences it is primarily presented as morphological (diversificationin body build), functional (diversification infunction), and dynamic (size diversification).Lateralization is an extremely important process inchildren’s development. A defined level of lateralizationdetermines efficient operation. Delayed lateralizationleads to disorders in motor and mental fitness. Childre<strong>nr</strong>epresenting a low level of lateralization usually presenta low level of physical fitness and dexterity; theyhave poorer motor coordination than their peers withclear lateralization. Disorders of coordination causedecreased velocity and precision of movements, whichtranslates into a lack of economy and harmony of activities.Poorly lateralized children display difficultiesin learning to read, write, and count; in spatial orientation;and in recognizing the sides of the body. Alsotheir spatial orientation is disturbed: such children haveproblems with recognizing the right and left sides ofthe body and difficulties in reproducing geometricalshapes. These factors render activities, including bothintellectual and motor learning, less effective. Yet a highlevel of lateralization affects cognitive processes, determinesefficient action, and conditions the course of thelearning process itself [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. At the initial stageof research on lateralization, the disorders came downto the problem of left-handedness. Today, views havechanged, and its course and status are investigated interms of model, pace of development in ontogenesis,and its neurophysiologic background. Models of homo– 74 –
- Page 2:
ISSN 1731-0652COMMITTEE FOR REHABIL
- Page 5 and 6:
ANTROPOMOTORYKAISSN 1731-0652KOMITE
- Page 7 and 8:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 9 and 10:
From Editorsching stimulus had a po
- Page 12 and 13:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 14 and 15:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 16:
ORIGINAL PAPERSPRACE ORYGINALNE
- Page 19 and 20:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 21 and 22:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 23 and 24: Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 25 and 26: Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 28 and 29: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 30 and 31: The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 32 and 33: The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 34 and 35: The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 36 and 37: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 38 and 39: Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 40 and 41: Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 42 and 43: Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 44: Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 47 and 48: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 49 and 50: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 51 and 52: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 53 and 54: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 55 and 56: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 58 and 59: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 60 and 61: Assessment of the effectiveness of
- Page 62 and 63: Assessment of the effectiveness of
- Page 64 and 65: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 66 and 67: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 68 and 69: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 70 and 71: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 72 and 73: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 76 and 77: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 78 and 79: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 80 and 81: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 82: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 85 and 86: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 87 and 88: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 89 and 90: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 91 and 92: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoCe
- Page 93 and 94: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoD.
- Page 95 and 96: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 97 and 98: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 99 and 100: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 101 and 102: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward Mleczkoof
- Page 104 and 105: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 106 and 107: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 108 and 109: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 110 and 111: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 112 and 113: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 114: REVIEW PAPERSPRACE PRZEGLĄDOWE
- Page 117 and 118: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
- Page 119 and 120: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
- Page 121 and 122: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko