Talk:Muscle memory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muscle memory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sensory motor amnesia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Muscle memory. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasmineab3. Peer reviewers: Tamrynjade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This page is very very informal. Perhaps it would be best to formalize it. 203.208.71.49 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it would be easier and more appropriate to merge or redirect this page to procedural memory, as muscle memory is simply the non-technical term for procedural memory. I say this because the physiology section in the present article is rather incorrect and should perhaps be removed, which would leave little more than discussion of examples of procedural memory which may be more useful in that page. digfarenough (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not only very informal but so general so that it does not focus on the subject area and does not relate the neurological information to motor memory at all. Furthermore, I would have to disagree with the examples given for fine and gross motor skills. it is not the length of limb or size of the movement which defines gross and fine motor skills, they are components of a single movement. SO for example components of ball-throwing will be 'fine-motor' particularly when performed by a skilled practitioner. Pierre Skorich 21/12/2006

This document seems to be similar to http://www.mind-sports.com/muscle-memory.htm

I agree that Muscle memory is informal terminology. I think it deserves separate treatment compared to procedural memory with focus on effector (body parts) dependent learning. Procedural versus declarative learning/ mmeory is a separate issue. Kpmiyapuram 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that muscle memory begins with a visual cue is misleading - if this were true then blind people would have no access to muscle memory of any kind, which is patently not the case.

Muscle memory can be triggered by a variety of external cues - visual, yes; also auditory and kinaesthetic (physical touch and movement) - the three primary learning modes identified in Neuro Linguistic Programming. These cues can be real or imagined: the important thing is that they are rehearsed in conjunction with the action itself. Webfishy 00:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in this article, particularly under physiology, doesn't appear to have anything to do with the source cited. Could someone please verify this article's information's origin? 76.187.46.177 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acetylcholine's role in muscle memory.

This article is ambiguous about the mechanism by which acetylcholine actually facilitates muscle memory, and furthermore the information in this article is not properly cited. Therefore I feel it is necessary to have an expert on the subject provide further information on the actual process, confirm that the information present is actually correct, and actually incorporate the findings of the cited source into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArphaxadHunter (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out a while back: any experts who would provide information are likely going to the page procedural memory because that's the proper term for the category of memory containing muscle memory. It seems to me that the whole description of the role of neurotransmitters is wrong: from what I know, yes: acetylcholine is involved in memory (in the brain) and it is a neurotransmitter at neuromuscular junctions, but those appear to be distinct roles. Also someone linked from the top of the page to an article that does not ever define muscle memory, and it is about plasticity at neuromuscular junction synapses which is not muscle memory in the way people mean it. I maintain that this page should be scrapped and the article should redirect to procedural memory. I'll at least make a few fixes right now...digfarenough (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've done some looking into it, and it seems that what is commonly referred to as muscle memory has very little to do with actual memory. I believe it's referred to professionally as skeletal muscle plasticity, and it's a totally separate process from procedural memory. I'll move the information I placed in the previous section into this section. ArphaxadHunter (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:

I found a source that might be extremely helpful in cleaning up this article. Evidently, muscle memory does exist independent of procedural memory. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/414

Anyway, I went and looked into the aforementioned article more fully. If I understand correctly, the mechanism for muscle memory actually has little to do with acetylcholine. If I'm correct, it's a process involving the influx of Ca++ associated with exercise, which in turn binds with calcium/calmodulin-dependent kinase II (CamKII), inducing a process called intramolecular autophosphorylation by which CamKII is allowesd to remain and work independent of the calcium. CamKII records frequency, duration, and amplitude of calcium activity (which is a direct reflection of the level of contraction being done by the muscle). Over prolonged periods of exercise and therefore prolonged exposure to calcium, more CamKII's are activated and are given more time to observe calcium's movements. CamKII then phosphorylates SRF, which binds to SRE. This activates alpha-actin, which plays a role (I'm not sure on the details here) in altering the cell's gene expression to reflect recorded activities, thus allowing the cell to regulate metabolic, contractile, and membrane-bound pump proteins accordingly. This is, in essence, the mechanism by which a cell "remembers" repeated actions. ArphaxadHunter (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds reasonable: it is similar to the way plasticity (LTP/LTD) works between neurons. But it seems that what is remembered is how much the muscle has been exerted. So it sounds (though I'm not an expert on this part of the body) that this is the method by which muscles can learn to grow (hypertrophy and increase mitochondria numbers) in response to exercise. Acetylcholine is probably only involved to the extent that it is probably what is increasing calcium levels in the first place (while acting as a neurotransmitter and the neuromuscular connections). Think that this article should focus on this sort of muscular plasticity? It still seems to be that we should include one line that mentions that, in the popular sense, muscle memory refers to procedural memory and remove further talk of that from this article, because this still doesn't seem to be a form of memory for the sequences of movements that people term "muscle memory." And in case you were curious, this type of plasticity in the brain is also rather independent of acetylcholine (although plasticity, at least in some regions, does occur more strongly in the presence of acetylcholine). digfarenough (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it all boils down to the term "Muscle Memory" being relatively vague and informal. From my experience in various athletic scenarios where there was an emphasis on developing muscle memory, I think it would be appropriate to include information both about procedural memory and skeletal muscle plasticity. As you've stated, procedural memory would be a more accurate description of the process by which we actually learn to perform actions automatically, but I would definitely say skeletal muscle plasticity plays an important role "behind the scenes," as it were. CamKII records not only amplitude, but frequency and duration as well. In essence, the muscles themselves actually "remember" how much force needs to be applied, how fast, and for how long. Thus, while procedural memory actually handles the sequencing, skeletal muscle plasticity seems to enable a much more precise and consistent action, which is absolutely essential at the professional level in most sports. So it seems the two processes together comprise what people refer to as muscle memory. ArphaxadHunter (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle memory → Muscle memory (motor learning) — Muscle memory (definition) should lay here, or it should be a disambiguion page as muscle memory can be defined in different ways. See also Muscle memory (strength training). 193.75.93.34 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Muscle memory (definition) is atrocious and has no place in an encyclopedia. If disambiguation is necessary -- I'm not certain these are actually two separate concepts -- then use a disambiguation page, not a separate "definition" article. Powers ^T 12:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be more constructive.I am not sure the term "atrocious" is very helpful. You have to be specific if you dont like the article. I work in the muscle memory field, and I think a clearification is necessary. It is NOT correct that muscle memory is simply the non-technical term for procedural memory, see e.g. the Staron et al. reference, se also arguments from User:ArphaxadHunter above:"I think it would be appropriate to include information both about procedural memory and skeletal muscle plasticity" he says. A text similar to the one T dislike so strongly would have to be included somewhere. If the changes are done as I am suggesting by creating three articles or by merging the articles or by a disambiguion page I have no strong opinions, I am not that experienced in the Wikipedia technicalities. The important thing is that the term muscle memory describes a phenomenon, as outlined Muscle memory (definition). There are, however, two explanations for this phenomenon, Muscle memory (motor learning), Muscle memory (strength training) these explanations are not mutually exclusive. If you do a websearch you will se how the term muscle memory is used in practice User:Muskel —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. As I see it, muscle memory in the sense of motor learning and muscle memory (strength training) are two entirely unrelated phenomena, and they should not be treated as one phenomenon with two explanations. Muscle memory (definition) is unnecessary and unhelpful and should be deleted. The pop science use of "muscle memory" in the sense as treated in the article is by far the more common one. --Lambiam 13:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal

It has been proposed to merge Muscle memory (strength training) into Muscle memory.

Oppose. As I see it, muscle memory in the sense of motor learning and muscle memory (strength training) are two entirely unrelated phenomena, and I don't see what is to be gained by treating both in one article. --Lambiam 22:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lambian is wrong. Is the journal PNAS a pop science journal? Read the scientific papers. If you read the definition article suggested for Wikipedia the point is made that muscle memory is a phenomenon. This phenomenon have two different explanations, namley motor learning and local muscle plasticity. It is correct that the biological mechanism is quite different for these two, but they both contribute to the observation of the muscle memory phenomenon. This view is supported by the scientific references given, by some earlier comments on the current Muscle memory article (see above), by a net search on how the term is used, and by me who has a research record in both neurobiology and in muscle plasticity. In my opinion the current article defining muscle memory as motor learning is misleading both woth respact to the scientific use of the term and the popular use. So something must be changed. I think the definition article should be the initial definition on an article on muscle memory, and then a discussion on muscle plasticity Muscle memory (strength training) and motor learning should follow muscle memory The article on platicity could be expanded also to include for example muscle endurance training, but less is known here. Muskel. —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Can you give a reliable source that states that muscle memory in the sense of motor learning and muscle memory in the sense of local muscle plasticity are one phenomenon with two different explanations? It makes about as much sense to me as to claim that president Andrew Jackson and the actor Andrew Jackson are one person with two different identities. --Lambiam 09:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Yes I can provide references. If you look at the the entry Muscle memory (strength training) (which I have written) the reference Staron et at al. discuss these matters related to strength training. And in the Bruusgaard et al. paper in PNAS the opening statment reads: "Individuals with a history of previous training acquire force quickly on retraining (1, 2), and this commonly observed phenomenon has been dubbed “muscle memory.” There is no know mechanism for memory in muscle cells, and, to date, the long lasting effects of previous training have been attributed to motor learning in the central nervous system (3)." The numbers are further references in that paper. The point is that muscle memory related to strength training like muscle memory related to playing the flute was both attributed to motor learning (in lack of a local muscle mechanism). I also repeat again what the dicussant ArphaxadHunter said in 2008 in a discussion here:"I think it would be appropriate to include information both about procedural memory and skeletal muscle plasticity". Should an article about the fall of the roman empire be in two articles: Roman fall (lead poisoning) and Roman fall (military overstretch), or should they be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskel (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation you offer from Bruusgaard et al. only shows that, according to the authors, unspecified persons have attributed the strength-training phenomenon ("acquire force quickly on retraining") to motor learning – in other words, that two different phenomena have apparently been conflated by some researchers. It does not suggest at all that they themselves think now that this strength-training phenomenon is the same phenomenon as the motor-learning phenomenon. On the contrary, I read this as stating that what previously was naively thought to be manifestations of one single phenomenon, on closer examination turns out to involve another, totally different and separate, phenomenon. What ArphaxadHunter believes or does not believe is irrelevant to the question whether there are reliable sources that state that what is called "muscle memory" is one phenomenon with two explanations. --Lambiam 21:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm you have read the PNAS article? I can not quote it all, but the abstract says: "Effects of previous strength training can be long-lived, even after prolonged subsequent inactivity, and retraining is facilitated by a previous training episode. Traditionally, such “muscle memory” has been attributed to neural factors in the absence of any identified local memory mechanism in the muscle tissue". Then they go on and identifies this new mechanism. It seems clear that they use the term muscle memory for strenght-related phenomena and that they think motor learning has previously been used as the sole explanation also for "remembering" strength, and that their new data shows that there is a local muscle effect related to the muscle cell nuclei that can explain the muscle memory without motor learning. The PNAS paper is saying exactly the same thing I am saying in Muscle memory (strength training) The phenomenon is that muscles "seems" to remember strength or skills. But there are separate biological mechanisms involved. As you say the PNAS paper expresses that previously the muscle memory phenomenon was naively attributed to motor learning, even for strength intensive tasks. Now according to the paper, also muscle plasticity needs to be taken into account. A wikipedia article on the subject should reflect the broad usage of the term (see the references and the web), and the multiple biological explanations given, such as motor learning and muscle plasticity. Wikipedia should also reflect new scientific developments. The current Muscle memory entry does not do any of this. It seems unclear where Lambian want to go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.21.181 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC) (This comment made by Muskel)[reply]
I'm almost inclined to ask if you have read the PNAS article. That article does not state or suggest that the two phenomena dubbed "muscle memory" are in fact the same phenomenon, because it only discusses one of the two, namely "muscle memory" in the strength-training sense. The only thing we learn is that the term "muscle memory" has (also) been used for the quick reacquisition of force on strength retraining, and that some researchers have attributed the long-lasting effects of previous training to motor learning. The article then goes on to argue that there is another explanation for the strength-training effect.

There is one thing popularly dubbed "muscle memory", which is the effect that after a good amount of training, playing a piano sonata, say, becomes an "automatic" process, not requiring a conscious effort to recall what key to hit next. It has nothing whatsoever to do with strength training, and a lot with sequencing, timing, and fine motor control. There is another thing, which later, confusingly, also has been dubbed "muscle memory", which is the effect that a strength-trained muscle, after long "detraining", is more quickly trained a second time than the first time. At some point in time at least one researcher has apparently thought, however strange this may sound, that this involved motor learning in the central nervous system, instead of being largely a local phenomenon. It beats me how you can seriously maintain that these two things are the same phenomenon having two completely unrelated explanations for the case of playing music and for strength training. --Lambiam 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I know the PNAS paper in and out, but I note you did not confirm that you had read it at all. You will see that the current Muscle memory entry also has a paragraph on strength training. I think in light of the newer evidence some of the content of that paragraph would have to be re-evaluted, as muscle mechanisms also seems to be involved, hence the penomena are clearly connected and not completely separate as you seem to suggest (I have not seen that you provide any refereneces yourself). There are also some other misunderstandings (not related to muscle plasticity) that should be corrected in that pargraph. I would have prefered a solution where an entry related to the term Muscle memory as i is used was discussed, and then links to articles about muscle plasticity and motior learning motor learning is already a separate entry. You and others, however blocked a consensus with rather general sweeping remarks. With hatnotes now introduced the reader would be able to navigate to the info he seeks, but I think the current main entry is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskel (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Bessel

He is mentioned as a philosopher. But wasn't he a mathematician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.1.202 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged "Sensory motor amnesia" section

I am moving this challenged section, which appears to claim a clinical entity, to the talk page here:

Sensory motor amnesia (SMA) occurs when the portions of the nervous system responsible for involuntary or automatic movement, such as the spinal cord, take indefinite persistent control of movements that are normally under the person's voluntary, conscious control.^{[medical citation needed]} As described by Thomas Hanna in his book Somatics: Reawakening the Mind's Control of Movement, Flexibility, and Health, SMA develops by habituation and the repeated execution of a movement pattern.^[1]^{[unreliable medical source?]}

86.186.168.226 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ Hanna, Thomas L. (1987). Somatics: Reawakening the Mind's Control of Movement, Flexibility, and Health. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0738209570.

Laughable Equivocation

A shibboleth instance of fitness folk science conflating "memory" types. In fact, the at least factual if not primary sense of 'muscle memory' is the changes at the cellular level that occur in skeletal muscle which has in the past reached some state of hypertrophy. The muscle fiber structure regresses to the pre-hypertrophy state but the cells retain the changes needed to restore the hypertrophy state. That's not the kind of memory referred to which occurs in the brain. There are ofc neurological changes at the motor units as well, but the titular phenomenon is primarily one of the muscle fiber cells, not the nervous system. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah see that it's actually a synthesis/metonymy (rather than a straightforward equivocation), but the same sort of complaint applies or a similar one to that with the current article level tagging. The sense of motor memory as such is dealt with properly in the strength training §. Acceptable I suppose since this is in fact sort of a folk encyclopedia and it's great to some OR like this evade the phage. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations

My suggestion for the article would be to find more recent research concerning muscle memory and to try and expand a bit more on the differences it has from procedural memory. This would help clarify things for many readers and if it were explained a bit more thorough in the Lead, the article would stand out a bit more.Spencershumate (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse button mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jidanni/diary/392371 mentions the hazards of program A mapping mouse buttons one way, and program B the other, on the user. Please mention something in this area. Jidanni (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muscles don't have memory

Could it please be specificed that muscles don't have memory, the brain does. Whoever coined this term, didn't think it through, and it became popular

Other ways to term this:

muslce-to-brain memory
motion memory
repeated motion memory
habitual muscle motion memory
muscle motion memory
kineto-muscular memory

TudorTulok (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should perhaps be called Motor Memory, but we have a separate article on that. Muscle memory is more of a colloquialism. Should the articles be merged? SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hanna, Thomas L. (1987). Somatics: Reawakening the Mind's Control of Movement, Flexibility, and Health. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0738209570.

[1]