{"id":3132,"date":"2015-12-28T11:56:15","date_gmt":"2015-12-28T11:56:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=3132"},"modified":"2016-02-09T08:16:49","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T08:16:49","slug":"development-of-hand-functions-in-the-human-being-ontogeny","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol8no2\/development-of-hand-functions-in-the-human-being-ontogeny\/","title":{"rendered":"Development of Hand Functions in the Human Being Ontogeny"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is known that the human being\u2019s child is born helpless because since its birth it is \u201chanded\u201d considerably more loosely than cubs of the majority of animals. Basic actions and behavioral reactions of animals are \u201crecorded\u201d in their brain, have biological nature and appear at once after the birth or as soon as cubs grow. The baby\u2019s brain contains few ready \u201crecords\u201d. That\u2019s why it masters various human being\u2019s actions and forms of behavior in\u00a0the\u00a0process of acquiring sociocultural experience (Vygotskiy 1991, Muhina 1980). Hands play the most important role in the human being\u2019s acclimating of the environmental space and the establishment of the system of relations with\u00a0him. F. Engels advanced an extremely important idea on the importance of the hand in the process of turning the monkey into the human being and showed the importance of an instrument (Engels 1934, 50-51). It is possible to\u00a0challenge this hypothesis about the origin of \u201chomo sapiens\u201d as biological specie. However, the opinion about the\u00a0importance of the instrumental activity in the human being\u2019s evolution is true. Numerous archeological finds persuasively prove it.<\/p>\n

To a large extent the first baby\u2019s behavioral reactions in the early ontogeny as well as its further psycho-physical development are defined by timely gradual formation of both motor and speech functional system. Each of\u00a0them is characterized by specific regularities of the development at all age stages of the ordinary ontogeny. The\u00a0external expression of active functioning of these two systems has the form of various motor and speech reactions that firstly have an involuntary character, and then acquire higher voluntarism due their social stipulation. Thus, the development of movements in ontogeny is defined by anatomic and functional maturing of nerve fibers and adjustment of the work of coordination levels. Anatomic maturing of central nervous substrates (the newest organs of movement \u2013 a pyramidal motor system and frontal systems of hemispheres build over it) finishes by\u00a0the\u00a0age of 2-2.5 years.<\/p>\n

N.A. Bernstein writes the following about it: \u201cNatural ontogeny of motor consists of two bitterly asynchronical phases. The first phase includes anatomic maturing of central nervous substrates that finishes by the\u00a0age of 2-2.5 years. The\u00a0second phase that sometimes goes over the puberty age is the phase of functional maturing and adjustment of\u00a0the work of coordination levels. At this phase the motor is not always developed directly progressively: temporary breaks and even regressions that create complicated wavering of proportions and balance between coordination levels may occur at some moments and in relation to some classes of movements (i.e., levels)\u201d (Bernstein 1997, 139).<\/p>\n

It is interesting to compare these provisions with the results of the comparative research of\u00a0Ioni\u00a0anthropoid\u2019s (chimpanzee\u2019s cub) and Rudi child\u2019s behavior made by the zoo psychologist N.N. Ladygina-Kots (Ladygina-Kots 1935).<\/p>\n

Besides, the research includes a theoretical analysis of works of a number of the most leading Russian researchers, particularly A.V. Zaporozhets. He came to the definition of the \u201cinternal picture\u201d or internal form of\u00a0movement (Zaporozhets 1986). According to the researcher, this picture contains the course of the situation and\u00a0those actions that can be made within this situation. A.V. Zaporozhets was the first researcher in the world who\u00a0included the course of the situation and the course of action, i.e., a sort of sensuous tissue in biodynamic tissue of movement, motion experience. Mastering new actions (not acquiring objects by actions or activity) is real enrichment of a human being. It means the development of not only operative and technical peculiarities but also his\/her\u00a0personality, really human life style. Simultaneously with the analysis of fundamental resources, children aged 2 months\u20137 years were observed (512 children participated in the research) in order to study the hand movements made in everyday life and in the process of various types of art activity.<\/p>\n

Besides, there were observations of animals\u2019 cubs in various zoos of the world (Great Britain, China, Russia, and Thailand, Philippines) in order to study the character of the hand movements and compare them\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0movements of the human being\u2019s hands.<\/p>\n

According to the authors, the functions that are formed in the long process of evolution, above all, include orientation in space, inspection of objects and materials in order to reveal their features, life support (eating, drinking, combing, self-massage of the wounded place by stroking, scratching, and rubbing), creativity (producing instruments of labor, household items, weapon), protection (the human being can push off the attacker, scratch, threaten with fists), communication (touching, stroking, gestures, greeting, pointing at oneself or an interlocutor), etc.<\/p>\n

During the research the method of theoretical matrix <\/em>was developed and tested. Data received by\u00a0N.N.\u00a0Ladygina-Kots acted as the matrix <\/em>of the fundamental principle. The later data received by other researchers: B.G. Ananiev (Ananiev 2001), N.A. Bernstein (Bernstein 1997), A.V. Bakushinskiy (Bakushinskiy 2009), A.V.\u00a0Zaporozhets (Zaporozhets 1986), L. Levy-Bruhl (Levy-Bruhl 2002), A.N. Leontiev (Leontiev, Zaporozhets\u00a01945), V.S. Muhina (Muhina 2000), T.P. Chrizman (Chrizman 1973) et al. was gradually built in\u00a0this\u00a0matrix. The research resulted in the theoretical model of the human being\u2019s hand development in ontogeny.<\/em><\/p>\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

The research of the results related to testing the theoretical model was focused on the correlations between the\u00a0model and the real level of the hand development with children aged from 2 months to 7 years. For this purpose original research methodologies were developed.<\/p>\n

1) \u201cMethodology of researching objects without the participation of visual analyzer\u201d assumed the recognition of\u00a0various objects (materials, objects, safe instruments) by children only by using their hand. The objects were\u00a0placed in the non-transparent bag where the child moved down his hand and recognized the content according to such features as \u201cform\u201d and \u201cstructure\u201d.<\/p>\n

2) In order to reveal the children\u2019s capacities to define the relation between the instrument and the result of applying it in the person\u2019s activity, \u201cthe method of pair pictures\u201d was used. In this method we used the \u201cLogic-baby\u201d didactic board with six movable buttons of various colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple). They could be easily replaced in channels and adjusted in front of the answer picture with the opportunity of result self-control on\u00a0the\u00a0opposite side. There is a question: is it possible to create such experimental terms and conditions under\u00a0which\u00a0mutual directionality between objects according to the form as the meaning bearer (irrelevant irritant) affects the subject at the discretion of the experimenter, while the testee\u2019s attention and cognition as a whole are\u00a0not\u00a0focused on this mutual directionality. In order to create such experimental terms and conditions, we used the\u00a0\u201cmethod of recognizing an instrument\u201d. It enabled us to confirm the fact of the testee\u2019s perception of the\u00a0irrelevant irritant and to reveal the track of impact the irrelevant irritant (even if unconsciously) in the testee\u2019s memory. \u201cThe\u00a0method of recognizing an instrument\u201d is also interesting by the fact that it enables to assign the\u00a0subject\u2019s activity only in one specific direction.<\/p>\n

3) \u201cMethodology of movement actualization\u201d was developed in order to study the level of understanding the motion experience through the material of traditional instruments. The methodology bears a variable character that takes into account peculiarities of the age. Pictures were alternatively showed to children of younger preschool age\u00a0(3-5\u00a0years old), individually for every child. The child saw the whole plot. The child was studying the picture during 5-10 seconds, then answered the researcher\u2019s questions: \u201cWho is it? How did you guess? What is this man doing? What does he have in his hands? Why is he doing it?\u201d The answers were documented. Then the children were\u00a0offered to \u201chelp\u201d the man to do the job (cook supper, dig a hole, draw a picture, play drums, etc.) in the play form. Firstly, the researcher asked the child to show movements without instruments (pantomime as if in a theatre) and then select the suitable instrument from the offered ones and make the action with its aid. We fixed the accuracy of the answer, orientation in labor activities drawn on the picture, understanding of the plot, ability to reproduce actions of the imitation character (accuracy of movements or a series of movements), selection of a suitable instrument (selection adequacy), ability to reproduce labor actions with the aid of an instrument (reasonability, adequacy and expression of movements).<\/p>\n

7-8 pictures were simultaneously demonstrated to children aged 5-6, and 9-10 pictures to children aged 6-7. Herewith, the exposition frame closed a part of the plot enabling to see only the conceptual part \u2013 man\u2019s hands with\u00a0an instrument. The child was studying the picture during 3-5 seconds, and then answered the researcher\u2019s questions: \u201cWhat is happening here, in your opinion? How did you guess? What and why is this man doing? What does\u00a0he\u00a0have in his hand (hands)? Can you tell me the man\u2019s profession?\u201d The answers were documented. In addition to the general criteria that allowed to estimate the actions of younger preschoolers, we also noted: 1)\u00a0succession and\u00a0motivation of selection, 2) ability to determine analogies between similar instruments (hairdresser\u2019s scissors and\u00a0sewer\u2019s scissors) and to adequately make movements that correspond to the concept of a\u00a0profession, 3) ability to\u00a0refer various movements of hands to various professions and instruments related to them (for example, a needle or sewer\u2019s scissors).<\/em><\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the process of the theoretic research the following results were achieved:<\/p>\n

1) Development of a theoretical model of the process of the child\u2019s hand development in ontogeny (from 2 months to\u00a07 years old),<\/p>\n

2) System analysis of the content of contemporary educational programs with respect to the compliance of\u00a0the\u00a0declared criteria related to the development of the child\u2019s hand with the parameters described in\u00a0the\u00a0theoretical model; as for the parameters, a number of inconsistencies were revealed, their causes were\u00a0analyzed in partnership with 10 independent experts (physiologists, hygienists, children\u2019s doctors, and\u00a0psychologists),<\/p>\n

3) Psychological and pedagogical diagnosis related to the correlation of criteria described in the theoretical model with real indicators of the children\u2019s hand development was carried out, a number of divergences were revealed according to\u00a0the\u00a0following parameters: \u201clacing shoes by itself\u201d (divergence is from 6 months to 1 year old), \u201cusing scissors with certainty\u201d (considerable divergence in 1-1.5 years is revealed in the group of so called \u201chome children\u201d, i.e.,\u00a0the\u00a0ones who do not attend a kindergarten).<\/p>\n

In the process of the experimental research where 512 children aged from 2 months to 7 years participated, the following results were received:<\/p>\n