You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Refining the Motor Training Hypothesis for the Evolution of Play
John A. Byers and Curt Walker
The American Naturalist
Vol. 146, No. 1 (Jul., 1995), pp. 25-40
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2463035
Page Count: 16
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Age distribution, Muscles, Rats, Motor ability, Juveniles, Exercise
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The motor training hypothesis, proposed in its first form nearly half a century ago and broadened subsequently, states that the function of play is adaptive modification of the developing neuromuscular system. Evidence from many mammalian species indirectly supports the motor training hypothesis, but the exact nature of developmental change prompted by play remains unknown. We reviewed literature on the anatomical and physiological effects of exercise in mammals and categorized these as effects available to individuals at any age, versus effects available only during a discrete period of postnatal development, and transitory effects, which decay soon after exercise ends, versus permanent effects. We found that most effects are available at any age and are transitory; we argue that they are not likely primary benefits of play. However, two effects that influence motor performance-modification of cerebellar synaptogenesis and modification of skeletal muscle fiber type differentiation-are available only during a short period of postnatal development and appear to be permanent. In three species for which both kinds of data were available, the age distribution of play closely matched the age distribution of these two types of experience-modifiable development. We propose that play may not be motor training in the broad sense, but rather it may be behavior designed to influence specific types of development.
The American Naturalist © 1995 The University of Chicago Press