Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 459–477 | Cite as

An enactive approach to appropriation in the instrumented activity of trail running

  • Nadège RochatEmail author
  • Ludovic Seifert
  • Brice Guignard
  • Denis Hauw
Research Article
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

The incorporation of external tools during a sports activity can be analyzed through the dynamics of appropriation. In this study, we assumed that appropriation could be documented at both the phenomenological and behavioral scales and aimed to characterize trail runners’ interactions with five carrying systems (i.e., backpacks proposing different ways of carrying water) in an ecological setting. The runners ran a 3-km trail running loop, equipped with inertial sensors to quantify both their vertical oscillations and those of the carrying systems. After the trials, phenomenological data were collected in enactive interviews. Results showed that (1) the runners encountered issues related to the carrying system, whose emergence in their experiences while running revealed the interplay between the tool’s transparency (i.e., when runners provided no account of the carrying system) and opacity (i.e., when runners mentioned perceptions of disturbing system elements), and (2) when the runners carried the water bottles on the pectoral straps, they felt the system bouncing in an uncomfortable way, especially in the less technical parts of the route. We therefore investigated the low- and high-order parameters of coordination by computing the vertical accelerations and the acceleration couplings between the carrying system and the runners in order to identify coordination modes. The congruence between the runners’ experiences and the behavioral data was noted in terms of (1) the system’s vertical oscillations (i.e., low-order parameters) and (2) the couplings between the accelerations of the runners and the backpacks (i.e., high-order parameters). Our results demonstrated that the appropriation process was shaped by the interactions between the runners’ activity, the environment and the physical properties of the tool. These interactions occurred in fluctuating phases where the runners perceived the carrying systems as more or less incorporated. Our results highlighted how tool incorporation is revealed through changes in its transparency/opacity in the actor’s activity.

Keywords

Enaction Phenomenology Appropriation Trail running 

Notes

Acknowledgements

At the time when the study was conducted, one author (NR) was employed in Raidlight-Vertical Outdoor LAB, Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse, France, and was funded by a grant from the ANRT (Association Nationale de Recherche et Technologie) under a CIFRE agreement (Industrial Convention of Learning by Research) with Raidlight and Swiss universities (Grant Number 2014/0538). This project also received the support of the CPER/GRR1880 Logistic, Mobility, and Numeric and FEDER XTerM. The funder provided support in the form of a salary for the author but had no additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Adé D, Seifert L, Gal-Petitfaux N, Poizat G (2017) Artefacts and expertise in sport: an empirical study of ice climbing. Int J Sport Psychol 48:82–98Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann ER, Yun X, Brumfield A (2007) Investigating the effects of magnetic variations on inertial/magnetic orientation sensors. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA601163
  3. Barandiaran XE, Paolo ED, Rohde M (2009) Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adapt Behav 17:367–386.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712309343819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardy BG, Mantel B (2006) Ask not what’s inside your head, but what your head is inside of (Mace, 1977). Intellectica 43:53–58Google Scholar
  5. Black D (2014) Where bodies end and artefacts begin: tools, machines and interfaces. Body Soc 20:31–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X13506946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carijó FH, de Almeida MC, Kastrup V (2013) On haptic and motor incorporation of tools and other objects. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 12:685–701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-012-9269-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang R, Van Emmerik R, Hamill J (2008) Quantifying rearfoot–forefoot coordination in human walking. J Biomech 41:3101–3105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.07.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries WHK, Veeger HEJ, Baten CTM, van der Helm FCT (2009) Magnetic distortion in motion labs, implications for validating inertial magnetic sensors. Gait Posture 29:535–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.12.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Depraz N, Gyemant T, Desmidt S (2017) A first-person analysis using third-person data as a generative method: a case study of surprise in depression. Constr Found 12:190–203Google Scholar
  10. Di Paolo E (2009) Extended life. Topoi 28:9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-008-9042-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gal-Petitfaux N, Adé D, Poizat G, Seifert L (2013) L’intégration de données biomécaniques et d’expérience pour comprendre l’activité de nageurs élites et concevoir un dispositif d’évaluation. Trav Hum 76:257–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gapenne O, Declerck G (2009) Conceptualizing and designing the process of appropriation: the story of a disappearance. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on research into design. Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gesbert V, Durny A, Hauw D (2017) How do soccer players adjust their activity in team coordination? An enactive phenomenological analysis. Front Psychol 8:854.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00854 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Guignard B, Rouard A, Chollet D et al (2017a) Perception and action in swimming: effects of aquatic environment on upper limb inter-segmental coordination. Hum Mov Sci 55:240–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.08.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guignard B, Rouard A, Chollet D, Seifert L (2017b) Behavioral dynamics in swimming: the appropriate use of inertial measurement units. Front Psychol 8:383.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00383 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Haddad JM, van Emmerik REA, Whittlesey SN, Hamill J (2006) Adaptations in interlimb and intralimb coordination to asymmetrical loading in human walking. Gait Posture 23:429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.05.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hafer JF, Freedman Silvernail J, Hillstrom HJ, Boyer KA (2016) Changes in coordination and its variability with an increase in running cadence. J Sports Sci 34:1388–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1112021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauw D (2018) Énaction et intervention en psychologie du sport chez les sportifs élites et en formation [Enaction and intervention in sports psychology among elite athletes and in training]. Can J Behav Sci/Rev Can Sci Comport 50:54–64.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Havelange V (2010) The ontological constitution of cognition and the epistemological constitution of cognitive science: Phenomenology, enaction and technology. In: Stewart J, Gapenne O, Di Paolo E (eds) Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 335–359Google Scholar
  20. Legrand D (2006) The bodily self: the sensori-motor roots of pre-reflective self-consciousness. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 5:89–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9015-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lenay C (2006) Énaction, Externalisme et Suppléance Perceptive. Intellectica 43:27–52Google Scholar
  22. Luinge HJ, Veltink PH (2005) Measuring orientation of human body segments using miniature gyroscopes and accelerometers. Med Biol Eng Comput 43:273–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345966 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lutz A (2002) Toward a neurophenomenology as an account of generative passages: a first empirical case study. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 1:133–167.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020320221083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madgwick SOH, Harrison AJL, Vaidyanathan R (2011) Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, pp 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975346
  25. McGann M, De Jaegher H, Di Paolo E (2013) Enaction and psychology. Rev Gen Psychol 17:203–209.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merayo JMG, Brauer P, Primdahl F et al (2000) Scalar calibration of vector magnetometers. Meas Sci Technol 11:120–132.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/11/2/304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohamed S, Favrod V, Antonini Philippe R, Hauw D (2015) The situated management of safety during risky sport: learning from skydivers’ courses of experience. J Sports Sci Med 14:340–346PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Needham R, Naemi R, Chockalingam N (2014) Quantifying lumbar–pelvis coordination during gait using a modified vector coding technique. J Biomech 47:1020–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Poizat G (2015) Learning through interaction with technical objects: from the individuality of the technical object to human individuation. In: Filliettaz L, Billett S (eds) Francophone perspectives of learning through work. Springer, Cham, pp 119–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18669-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poizat G, Goudeaux A (2016) Appropriation et individuation : un nouveau modèle pour penser l’éducation et la formation ? Trans Formations 12. https://pulp.univ-lille1.fr/index.php/TF/article/view/1
  31. Poizat G, Durand M, Theureau J (2016) The challenges of activity analysis for training objectives. Trav Hum 79:233–258.  https://doi.org/10.3917/th.793.0233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rochat N, Hauw D, Antonini Philippe R et al (2017) Comparison of vitality states of finishers and withdrawers in trail running: an enactive and phenomenological perspective. PLoS ONE 12:e0173667.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173667 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Rochat N, Hauw D, Seifert L (2018) Enactments and the design of trail running equipment: an example of carrying systems. Appl Ergon.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sabatini AM (2011) Estimating three-dimensional orientation of human body parts by inertial/magnetic sensing. Sensors 11:1489–1525.  https://doi.org/10.3390/s110201489 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Seel T, Raisch J, Schauer T (2014) IMU-based joint angle measurement for gait analysis. Sensors 14:6891–6909.  https://doi.org/10.3390/s140406891 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Seifert L, Orth D, Boulanger J et al (2014a) Climbing skill and complexity of climbing wall design: assessment of jerk as a novel indicator of performance fluency. J Appl Biomech 30:619–625.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2014-0052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Seifert L, Wattebled L, Herault R et al (2014b) Neurobiological degeneracy and affordance perception support functional intra-individual variability of inter-limb coordination during ice climbing. PLoS ONE 9:e89865.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089865 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Sève C, Nordez A, Poizat G, Saury J (2013) Performance analysis in sport: contributions from a joint analysis of athletes’ experience and biomechanical indicators. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:576–584.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01421.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Simondon G (2005) L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Million, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  40. Steiner P (2010) Philosophie, technologie et cognition: etat des lieux et perspectives. [Philosophy, technology and cognition: State of the art and perspectives]. Intellectica 53:7–40Google Scholar
  41. Stewart JR, Gapenne O, Di Paolo EA (2010) Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Theureau J (2003) Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action centered design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  43. Theureau J (2006) Le cours d’action : méthode développée, Premiere edition. Octares Editions, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  44. Theureau J (2010) Les entretiens d’autoconfrontation et de remise en situation par les traces matérielles et le programme de recherche « cours d’action ». Rev Anthropol Connaiss 4(2):287–322.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.010.0287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Theureau J (2011) Appropriations 1, 2 & 3. Presented at the Journée Ergo-Idf, CNAM, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson E (2005) Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 4:407–427.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9003-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Varela F (1996) Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem. J Conscious Stud 3:330–349Google Scholar
  48. Varela F (2004) Quel savoir pour l’éthique?. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Varela F, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive mind and human experience. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weber A, Varela FJ (2002) Life after Kant: natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 1:97–125.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020368120174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CETAPS Laboratory - EA 3832, Faculty of Sports SciencesUniversity of Rouen NormandyMont Saint AignanFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche en Psychologie de la Santé, du Sport et du Vieillissement (PHASE)Institute of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne (ISSUL)LausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Raidlight-Vertical SASSaint-Pierre-de-ChartreuseFrance

Personalised recommendations