The (cognitive) future of motor control and learning

An ongoing debate exists regarding the compatibility of dynamic systems theory (DST) and symbol processing accounts (SPA), where SPA assume abstract representations and processing. Another aspect under discussion is if either one appropriately describes and explains motor control and the modification of motor skills. Both frameworks have their strengths and weaknesses. DST provides mechanistic explanations and takes system complexity and the environment into account without reference to mental entities. System behaviour is described mathematically and considered deterministic. In contrast, SPA propose that abstract content, that is, mental representations of the (own) body, and task requirements are critically important for movement control. It is argued that neither approach nor an (unaccomplished) unification of these frameworks can achieve a comprehensive understanding of motor control and learning. In this perspective article, it is argued that further effective sources of motor learning, such as emotional support and motivational guidance, have the potential to improve and preserve motor skills indirectly and should, thus, be recognised. Qualitative approaches focussing on understanding the athlete and the situation might be appropriate for applied work.