Talk:Muscle memory

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)