Psychomotor Behavioral Platform: Human Cognitions Influence on Mind-Body Interaction Processes Regulated by Manifest Adaptive Traits Registered within a Spoor-Chain Signature

By Cmdr. (Ret.) Ty Cunningham, MMAS

All external human movement (behavior) is based on a visually perceptual inscription in

the brain of a rapid empathetic impetus of applicable evidence from the environment and its

conversion relevancy (thinking) or feelings of corporeal vicissitudes (emotions), and

consequently, catalogues this thinking or emotion within a spoor-chain signature (SCS) as a

ground contact point (GCP) indicator pressure release (IPR) or fluctuating pressure release (FPR)

to reference ground reaction forces (GRF) during human locomotion (Bermpohl et al., 2006;

Cunningham, 2011; Herbert, Pollatos, & Schandry, 2007; Lacasse, 2015; Vernazza-Martin,

Longuet, Damry, Chamot, & Dru, 2015). William James (1890) pertinently detected,

Objects of rage, love, fear, etc., not only prompt a man to outward deeds, but provoke

characteristic alterations in his attitude and visage, and affect his breathing, circulation,

and other organic functions in specific ways. . .. As with instincts, so with emotions, the

mere memory or imagination of the object may suffice to liberate the excitement. One

may get angrier in thinking over one’s insult than at the moment of receiving it; and we

melt more over a mother who is dead than we ever did when she was living (Vol. 2, p.

442).

Bermpohl et al. (2006) proffered that as a human organism (trackmaker) interacts

externally within an environment they build expectancies described as prior consideration to an

impending inducement which is cognitively forecast by a relative signal (see also So et al.,

2015). Therefore, every thought harvests an organic response in the brain based on controlled

attention in executive functioning (Primi, 2014). The brain then issues organic signals that are

communicated to the body, thus acting as heralds of the thought (Larsson, Kjall, & Richter-

Dahlfors, 2013). It, therefore, matters not whether the external human behaviors are incited by

predispositions (instincts), feelings (emotions), or intentions (thinking) (James, 1890); if the

human body should act upon the innervations, the kinetic (human locomotion) system must

accommodate the brain cognition, affection, or conation impulse (Larsson et al., 2013). Hence, in

either primary movement patterns (PMP) or secondary movement patterns (SMP), the eight

adaptive traits (EAT) are evident as a psychomotor behavioral platform (PMBP). The GCP

catalogues the IPR and FPR as an emotion or thought coded into the SCS (Cunningham, 2011).

Consequently, in this paper, I will accomplish four descriptive tasks: (1) explain cognition and

human behavior as a foundation for understanding the PMBP; (2) explicate the PMBP, thus,

illuminating human movement patterns; (3) elucidate the EAT; and lastly (4) facilitate

understanding of the Manifest Adaptive Traits (MAT), i.e., brain-bound, body-bound and action-

bound traits (BBT, BOBT, ABT).1

Cognition and Human Behavior

Human behavior is psychomotor action (Euler, Niermeyer, & Suchy, 2015). Human

behavior about spoor (footfall, footprint) evidence must be visually observable to be studied

psychologically (Cunningham, 2011). Within physical activity (Koch, Holland, Hengstler, & van

Knippenberg, 2009), “open” direct visual observation (DVO)2 of body-bound and action-bound

processes (gait, movement, and spoor byproduct, etc.) and “confidential” non-visual observation

(NVO)3 of brain-bound processes (thinking, feeling, etc.) are organized and all-inclusive in both

micro and macro human competences (Cunningham, 2011; Koch et al., 2009). The

psychophysiology of awareness, acuity, reasoning, drive, and passion are referenced as the biotic 1 This paper will not discuss how an investigator can read the SCS to observe psychomotor behavior. 2 DVO means that the investigator is observing a trackmaker as they are walking over a substrate. 3 NVO means that the investigator is not directly observing a trackmaker during locomotion, rather they are observing trackmaker behavior through the SCS.

side of all humans (Euler et al., 2015). In addition, the ecological impact of our human

involvement is salient. The debate of nature versus nurture is tendered and it is generally

accepted that humans (and for my purpose here, the term trackmaker) are an artefact of both

heredities (brain-bound traits) and habituations (body-bound and action-bound traits) (Bermpohl

et al., 2006; Cunningham, 2011).

The trackmaker is conceptualized within a systems modality, and therefore, linked to

three key facets of the human experience (mind, body, spirit) (James, 1890; Lacasse, 2015). This

3-pronged systems concept is unified and cannot interact separately but rather must function with

all parts in unison. The mind is cognition (perceptive, thoughtful, rational), affection (moods,

feelings, tendencies), and conation (decision, will, intents, motives for acting) (Cunningham,

2011; Maranges, Schmeichel, & Baumeister, 2016; Schiebener & Brand, 2015). This trackmaker

agenda abstractly demarcates that the mind collects evidences through the five senses and reveals

exploitations through the corporeal (Cunningham, 2011). The trackmaker’s body is composed of

genomic effects, physical body functioning, and explicit comportment. The trackmaker’s agenda

takes into deliberation a response coil amid evident actions and subsequent impetuses from the

input setting (Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015).

All anthropological thoughts establish biochemical rejoinders that prime behavior

(Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015). Through replication are insentient thoughts yield programmed

designs of comportment (Larsson et al., 2013; So et al, 2015). Therefore, they are virtually

spontaneous in nature and shape interactive patterns that are neurocognitively scripted in the

brain for recall (Schiebener & Brand, 2015). We have neuro-memoirs as involuntary plans that

contribute to a trackmaker being able to flourish in this biosphere (Wiener, Berthoz, & Wolbers,

2011). As a trackmaker processes the same thoughts and actions day after day, they become

neurosnaptically wired equal to the earlier experiences within the environmental settings

(Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015). These neural systems are hard-wired from our recurring thoughts,

actions, behaviors, feelings, emotions, skills, and conditioned experiences. This is significant

because it permits the trackmaker’s aptitude to reply swiftly to impetuses in the environment

(Kloter & Dietz, 2012; So et al., 2015). The incentives from the environment are administered

through a peripheral signal by one of the senses. Then a thought is formulated, which is enthused

by the exterior signal, thereby, turning the brain into a computer for retrieving an associative

design warehoused in the brain (Cunningham, 2011; Larsson et al., 2013). Once recovered, the

associated memory is processed as a programmed thought package or rivulet of perception,

which prods the body to move to billeting the thought from the mind (Vernazza-Martin et al.,

2015). Thus, the ensuing sequence, as an example, is the human body methodology for triggering

a normal walking gait (NWG) to travel from one point to another:

A thought of navigating from a present location to another position generates the first

sequences of exploit capacities in the brain. The eyes visually observe the bird feeder in the

backyard (as an example of trackmaker locomotion to an objective) and recruits the second

sequences of exploit capacities. The occipital lobe (accountable for vision) records the image of

the bird feeder. The temporal lobe (accountable for association and memory storage/learning)

links the image of the bird feeder with what it recollects of bird feeders, which then generates

added sequences of exploit capacities. The frontal lobe (responsible for higher cerebral

processing) permits the maintenance of attention while the body deliberately commences moving

toward the bird feeder. The body initiates articulation and participation of NWG toward the bird

feeder, the frontal lobe and pariental lobe (motor portion, also accountable for linguistic

apparatuses and universal sensory purposes) helps to recruit the muscular movement in the legs,

feet, and head, arms, and torso (HAT), and prompts sensory expectancy of what NWG will feel

like. The pariental lobe consents to sensation that the body is walking toward the bird feeder—

the body can sense moving through the GFS, each foot as it moves into the stance phase of the

GFS is placed on the ground interacting with the GRF for weight acceptance during locomotion.

At the same time, the cerebellum (accountable for synchronizing muscular movement) guides the

bodies fine motor movements to regulate congruently with gross motor movements to sustain

suitable equilibrium (Cunningham, 2011).4

Understanding the sequencing of trackmaker movement behaviorally to trackmaker

thought inscriptively is crucial to knowledge of PMBP. The forebrain (cognitive processing) and

midbrain (automatic response) relationship to environmental input is coefficient and pragmatic

(Weiner et al., 2011). When the trackmaker experiences stress, for instance, the employment of

the autonomic nervous system (ANS) triggers a fight, flight, posture, or freeze response to insure

survivability (Gage, Sleik, Polych, McKenzie, & Brown, 2003). Many of the inward output

stresses of life while moving within any environment transfer through the GFS as human

behaviors inscribed in the substrate as a SCS (Gage et al., 2003).5 The trackmaker will not

exhibit any behavior without the mind (conscious thought or unconscious emotion) directing it

neurologically (Larsson et al., 2013). All body-bound and action-bound trait movements start in

the mind (the brain in action as brain-bound traits) with a solitary thought. Therefore, this is vital

and lays relevant footing from which to begin understanding the PMBP of human behaviors

impact on GFS and subsequent SCS.

Human Patterns of Thought and Emotion within the PMBP

4 Any object within an environment from which the human body will need locomotion to attain movement to this objective can be substituted for the bird feeder in the backyard. 5 All spoor-chain signatures, therefore, are representative of human locomotion by way of the gait-footfall sequence transferred to a substrate by a trackmaker.

The formulation of a human behavior stems from an attached thought linked to an

emotion chemically, which converts the union into motivation to act (electrical signals or exploit

capacities) upon the chemical compulsion fashioned from the brain (Larsson et al., 2013). To

understand the PMBP in this process is to understand the assemblage between the locomotor

apparatus of the body as the tendered end state of our brain, mind, thought, and emotion. Thus, to

interact (output behavior) within an environment to all input stimuli (Cunningham, 2011).

Ronald de Sousa shows how broad the emotions platform is in its effect on the human

experience: “…emotional responses are a form of magical thinking, producing unreal solutions

to insoluble problems…. we are as much responsible for our emotions as for any voluntary

choice” (p. 40). A comprehensive consensus has developed on what is called suitability

circumstances on any model of emotion. de Sousa (2015) continues by connecting emotions to a

motivation to behavior (action),

“…emotions do not directly afford a knowledge of axiological facts, but rather provide us

with motivation for looking into evidence for such facts. Thus fear does not give us

evidence for thinking something is dangerous, but does provide a motive for paying

attention to what might be a threat…. Those thought-driven emotions are, to some

degree, susceptible to “re-gestalting”: meaning that one can construe a situation in

different ways of thinking about it in a new way” (p. 42).

Emotions play a fundamental part in the learning of register deviation anomalies (RDA)

of GFS and SCS baseline concepts within PMBP programming (Cunningham, 2011). The PMBP

must consider how thinking and deep seated emotional attachments root themselves within

human behavior (Bermpohl et al., 2006; Herbert et al., 2007). First, Newton’s law of linearity

gives empirical construct to observable human behavior physically. This law becomes a

quantitative tool in reference point development specifically; the qualitative analysis inherent,

however, in non-linearity cannot be discarded in the interpretation of GFS influence on potential

SCS generally. This becomes observable human behavior that is seen through DVO (watching a

NWG) and eventually through NVO (observing the NWG within the footfalls and footprints to

see human thought and emotion) (Berg, Wade, & Greer, 1994; Cunningham, 2011; Demichelis,

Olivier, & Berthoz, 2013). Second, cognitive psychologist make salient reference to research

showing that the human body must act out the neural programming of thought, each human

thought is habitually attached to a strong emotion for the body to sense or feel through the neuro-

synapses the exact time to perform behaviorally the produced thought, then it is transferred from

the brain, to the GFS, and finally to the SCS, which process is the PMBP (Larsson et al., 2013;

Primi, 2014; So et al., 2015; Van Den Eede et al., 2011).

The thoughts, therefore, that yield the chemicals in the brain consent for the trackmaker

to feel (emotion) precisely the way the trackmaker was just thinking (thought). So, every thought

(exploit capacity) harvests a chemical attachment that is coordinated via a feeling (emotional

motivation) in the trackmaker (James, 1890). Principally, when a trackmaker thinks joyful,

stirring, or optimistic thoughts, the brain produces chemicals that make the trackmaker feel

happy, moved, or lifted . . . when a trackmaker antedates an experience that is pleasing, their

brain immediately makes a chemical neurotransmitter called dopamine (Kim et al., 2015;

Larsson et al., 2013), which turns the brain and body on forming an expectancy of that

experience and roots the feeling of eagerness (Larsson et al., 2013; Vernazza-Martin et al.,

2015). If, conversely, the brain has odious, livid, or self-effacing thoughts, the brain will yield

chemicals called neuropeptides that the trackmaker retorts to in a equivalent way (Kim et al.,

2015). The body then feels detestable, irritated, or worthless.

Taking the 3-pronged approach of human behavior stated earlier and applying it to the

PMBP exposes the secret to understanding human behavioral platting within the SCS. To restate:

The mind is thoughts (perceptive, thoughtful, rational), emotions (moods, feelings, tendencies),

and behaviors (decision, will, intents, motives for acting) (Cunningham, 2011; Maranges,

Schmeichel, & Baumeister, 2016; Schiebener & Brand, 2015), which amasses data and displays

action through the corporeal body. The mind of any trackmaker, as action is executed, is scripted

to the substrate soil and vegetation by gravity impressions by the human foot as a response to

GRF during locomotion. The significance to PMBP programming is the straight linking between

output internally (thought, emotion, action) and input externally (environmental factors) to the

trackmaker’s body system. Described below are two illustrations of visible PMBP body

habituation programming that comes from the trackmaker’s brain and is registered to the SCS by

the GFS. The first, is described by as labored cognition, grief, weariness, or fatigue; and the

second, as without cognition, panic/fear (phobia), or out of control:

I

(Forebrain Function)

“The movements are made slowly, heavily, without strength, unwillingly, and with

exertion, and are limited to the fewest possible. Outwardly then, the quarry walks slowly,

unsteadily, dragging the feet and hanging the arms. The knees are unsteady in support of

locomotion, and with this condition of weakness of the voluntary thoughts of the

neocortex comes the degradation of energy to move the muscle apparatus of the whole

body. This condition brings with it a motor weakness, which drags the feet along the

ground with atypical shortened gait. Accompanying, the weakness are frequent stops with

no apparent reasoning except to suggest a mindset, which sluggishly innervates the

psychomotor apparatus through the midbrain acting on established neural patterns that

the frontal lobe cannot override. Voluntary movement is unwanted and the quarry only

moves to fight the cause of the weariness. Rather than expend energy to walk, the quarry

would rather sit in a sunken state looking inward instead of outward at the world around

and reflexes are slow when responding to external stimuli through the senses”

(Cunningham, 2011, p. 75-76).

II

(Midbrain Function)

“The frightened quarry, at first, stands motionless holding breath to avoid the object of

fear. Perhaps, the quarry will crouch down cowering away from the object hoping that the

object of fear does not recognize the quarry’s presence. A cold sweat may appear do to

clammy pale skin. The feet revolt and follow the fear with short sharp cuts, which move

away from the object. As the fear escalates to terror, the resultant explosion of violent

emotions sparks many possible overt behaviors. All the muscular apparatus may become

rigid on the one hand or explode into convulsive scurry of movement, which scampers

the feet erratically away from the object of fear. The baseline is suddenly aborted in

confusion as the body tries to recover from the object. Shortened steps and stride, wider

trail width, and the ground contact points are labored by foot drags to maintain stability.

Eventually, escape is manifest as the spoor-chain signature begins to open up through

locomotor behavioral programming, trying to reestablish a baseline, which is conducive

to speed. Gradually from the confusion of clustered movement comes an increased

distance within steps and stride, the trail width begins to narrow, and the ground contact

points recover from the extreme angles and damage to the wall, floor, and horizon”

(Cunningham, 2011, p.76-77).

Eight Adaptive Traits (EATs) and Innate/Manifest Adaptive Traits (IMATs) of the Psychomotor

Behavioral Platform (PMBP)

The adaptive traits support characteristically PMBP programming. The collaboration of

the adaptive traits inside the framework of trackmaker locomotion authenticates the sum required

for the pragmatic interaction to the IMAT during kinesis (Berg et al., 1994; Cunningham, 2011;

Demichelis et al., 2013). The EAT network together but never traverse. Consequently, the

crossing point of the EAT becomes larger than the entirety of all extents. EAT indicators occur

in the PMP and SMP. The MAT refers to the physical action countenance of supple traits of life,

which mature during the biopsychosocial development of a trackmaker (James, 1890; Maranges

et al., 2016). The MAT, as lexes of neuro-physiological-anatomical progressions, are

psychomotor exhibitions of the credible essentials of each trackmaker, individually

(Cunningham, 2011; Berg et al., 1994; Van Den Eede et al., 2011). MAT is facilitated either by

trackmaker PMP or SMP.

Three MAT Brain-Bound Traits (BBT)

All ecological acuities are acknowledged by the mind over the molding of the

trackmaker’s senses (Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015). Since the setting environmentally is not

motionless, thus ever fluctuating, the expected contact of the trackmaker to the setting is

observed through the mind by the brain, like a casting and retrieval system (Cunningham, 2011;

Schiebener & Brand, 2015). The mind’s conation is submissive to cognition (van den Heuvel et

al., 2016). It is the learning of this procedure in shaping the trackmaker exploits within the SCS

given interface with the environmental substrate (Schiebener & Brand, 2015; Vernazza-Martin et

al., 2015), which incriminates evident comportment consistent with the trackmaker’s mental

resolve as it is inscribed in the substrate (Euler et al., 2016).

In amalgamation of thought (BBT) and motives to act (ABT), intent is made probable

through BOBT tendencies (Maranges et al., 2011; Schiebener & Brand, 2015). As the 5 senses

are cast in the environment and the mind perceives ecological influences (Berg et al., 1994;

Schiebener & Brand, 2015), the trackmaker alarm reaction (AR) functions to recruit the general

adaptive syndrome (GAS) ought it to be required (Bermpohl et al., 2006; Cunningham, 2011).

The GAS formulates physically for survivability through “fight, flight, posture, submit”

responses. As AR is prohibited or subdued by the prevail of the forebrain by distinct hormones to

block these inherent tendencies, when entirely blocked manifest imperturbable-mind state

(MIMS) is attained (Bermpohl et al., 2006); when partially blocked manifest steadfast-mind state

(MSMS) is reached (Cunningham, 2011). When the comprehensive failure to block happens, AR

is evident in that the mind harvests distress, fright, and fury (Bermpohl et al., 2006; Van Den

Eede et al., 2011). Attaining MIMS or MSMS, the mind becomes malleable. Deprived of MIMS

or MSMS, the mind is unmalleable (Cunningham, 2011). This is all acted out in trackmaker

behavior, thus PMBP.

The manifest cognitive/intuitive trait (MCIT) advocates that the brain intuitively

assembles data from the setting, for which the trackmaker is fixed and appraises what is gathered

by the composite collaboration between both halves of the brain (Bermpohl et al., 2006;

Cunningham, 2011; Schiebener & Brand, 2015). The MCIT observes the setting and converts

and determines the complications of PMP and SMP, both cognitively or intuitively

(Cunningham, 2011; Euler et al., 2015). The manifest volitional trait (MVT) is cultured PMBP

programming constructed on the trackmaker experience and/or the habituated drill of the

individual (Larsson et al., 2013). MVT is the connection between neural-sensory purposes and

the GFS consequences of interaction within the environment (Schiebener & Brand, 2015;

Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015). MIMS/MSMS is the adhesion, which binds MCIT and MVT and

therefore congeals the operative use of both within the framework of PMBP (Cunningham,

2011). In MIMS/MSMS, both distinctive and evident are entrenched profoundly within the

human intrinsic predisposition for survivability (Bermpohl et al., 2006; Cunningham, 2011). This

disseminates the MIMS/MSMS orientation through the forebrain for exclusion of the AR during

ecological acuities (Demichelis et al., 2013), which summons either MIMS or MSMS to sustain

the reference point of GFS through the SCS or to diverge based on MVT (Cunningham, 2011;

Schiebener & Brand, 2015; Vernazza-Martin et al., 2015).

Two MAT Body-Bound Traits (BOBT) and Three MAT Action-Bound Traits (ABT)

Both BOBT and ABT are evident through the PMP and SMP of PMBP programming.

They realize ideal incorporation and thus attentiveness for all PMBP programming through

interface with stomach tensing through stomach breathing (breathing influences energy to

action). Manifest abdominal trait (MABT) ties the upper body fusing the kinetic energies of the

PMBP and the HAT (Cunningham, 2011; Weiner et al., 2011). Manifest respiratory/vocality trait

(MRVT) supports by augmenting kinetic energy with MABT thus realizing unison of energy in

moving the PMBP physically to include the HAT (Schiebener & Brand, 2015; Weiner et al.,

2011). Manifest omni-poise trait (MOPT) is the source for all trackmaker kinesis within the

PMBP (Cunningham, 2011; Euler et al., 2015). It is typified through the ordinary bearing of

standing erect. Both body constancy and body agility traverse at the normal trackmaker carriage

and arranges the reference point for all trackmaker kinesis (Reel, Rouse, Vernon, & Doherty,

2012). Normal standing is latent energy from which dynamic energy will occur (Reel, Rouse,

Vernon, & Doherty, 2010). Agility, on the contrary, exemplifies the modification from latent to

dynamic energy, with which PMP and SMP development is enthused (Cunningham, 2011; Reel

et al., 2010; Reel et al., 2012). Agility also advocates a coming back to solidity should either

dynamic energy diminish or conation suggest preservation owing to agility collaboration with

gravitational forces for which standing erect intermediates equilibrium when supplanting

modifies PMBP programming (Demichelis et al., 2013; Grabiner, Feuerbach, Lundin & Davis,

1995; Reel et al., 2010; Reel et al., 2012). This trait cooperates with MOPT by capitalizing in

PMP and SMP signifying a relationship between claiming force or resiliency to force in

concurrence to trackmaker purposes (Cunningham, 2011; Euler et al., 2015; Schiebener &

Brand, 2015). MOPT is a strategy index of PMP and SMP signifying collaboration of time and

space corresponding to reaching a PMBP end state (Lacasse, 2015; Schiebener & Brand, 2015;

So et al., 2015). There is a synchronization sequencing when MOPT and Manifest force-yield

trait (MFYT) are implemented with manifest synchronicity trait (MST) (Koch et al., 2009). To

orchestrate kinetic lexes an understanding of PMBP and HAT edifices and purposes in relation to

trackmaker end states must be projective to the SCS (Cunningham, 2011; Vernazza-Martin et al.,

2015).

Conclusion

All PMBP is deep-rooted as a trackmaker traverses on the various substrates of terrain

through the GFS to the SCS. The PMBP programming recorded in any SCS is the cognition,

affection, and conation of the trackmaker based on Newton’s law of linearity and motion. By

understanding the PMBP and how it is transferred by trackmaker GFS into the substrate SCS

makes having a deep knowledge of trackmaker cognition and psychomotor functioning and thus

its influence as corporeal manifestation of trackmaker kinetics is a must for the study of

cognitive psychology (Kloter & Dietz, 2012). The MAT are collectively constant within all

trackmakers’. The pragmatism of MAT, concerning the understanding of a potential trackmaker

and the cognitive behavioral facet of human recital allows the modern psychologist a means to

examine the constituent behaviors made evident during PMBP behavioral programming within

any SCS, and to appraise SCS inferences, both exclusively and lucidly to footfall meanings

within the SCS to glean cognitions. Each psychologist can evaluate and therefore place worth on

their own human cognitions investigation, thus interpreting the direct visual observation (DVO)

behavior of others in the SCS context to the non-visual observation (NVO) behavior. A

psychologist can learn to do this experientially, from a contemplative output from their mind,

observing behavior from the SCS, back to the mind of the trackmaker. While the psychologist is

in the middle of examining an SCS, thus behavior, observation of environmental input and

witnessing the PMBP recital of the trackmaker leaving the SCS from the mind of the

psychologist as the reference point is critical. Therefore, behavior referencing is realizing the

trackmaker story in the SCS as psychomotor behavior. All PMP and SMP are contained within

psychomotor behavior. Utilizing the EAT through the MAT allows the investigator to

comprehend the mind of the trackmaker through the GFS enumerated in the SCS. This leads the

investigator through knowledge base of systematic, methodological, and thus pragmatic skills to

observe the mind of the trackmakers PMBP. Any PMP and SMP indicator pressure releases

(IPR) or fluctuating pressure releases (FPR) is exclusive in its design to the trackmaker that left it

and establishes the GFS and its affiliate human behaviors incriminating the mind to its SCS.

References

Berg, W. P., Wade, M. G., & Greer, N. L. (1994). Visual regulation of gait in bipedal

locomotion: Revisiting Lee, Lishman, and Thomson (1982). Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 20(4), 854-863. doi:10.1037/0096-

1523.20.4.854

Bermpohl, F., Pascual-Leone, A. Amedi, A., Merabet, L.B., Fregni, F., & Gaab, N. et al. (2006).

Dissociable networks for the expectancy and perception of emotional stimuli in the

human brain. NeuroImage, 30, pp. 588–600

http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.040

Cunningham, T. (2011) Forensic spoorology: Seeing and understanding human behavior

through observation, classification and interpretation of spoor evidence.: Master of

military art and science theses. Retrieved at:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/2801/rec/1

de Sousa Pernes, R. B. (2015). Are our emotions true cognitions?. Studia Humana, 4(2), 39.

doi:10.1515/sh-2015-0015

Demichelis, A., Olivier, G., & Berthoz, A. (2013). Motor transfer from map ocular exploration to

locomotion during spatial navigation from memory. Experimental Brain

Research, 224(4), 605-611. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3336-9

Euler, M. J., Niermeyer, M. A., & Suchy, Y. (2016). Neurocognitive and neurophysiological

correlates of motor planning during familiar and novel contexts. Neuropsychology, 30(1),

109-119. doi:10.1037/neu0000219

Gage, W. H., Sleik, R. J., Polych, M. A., McKenzie, N. C., & Brown, L. A. (2003). The

allocation of attention during locomotion is altered by anxiety. Experimental Brain

Research, 150(3), 385-394. Retrieved at

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mnh&AN=12707746&site=eds-live

Grabiner, M., Feuerbach, J., Lundin, T., & Davis, B. (1995). Visual guidance to force plates does

not influence ground reaction force variability. Journal of Biomechanics, 28(9), 1115-

1117. Retrieved at

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=s3h&AN=SPH386963&site=eds-live

Herbert, B.M., Pollatos, O., & R. Schandry, R. (2007). Interoceptive sensitivity and emotion

processing: an EEG study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, pp. 214–227

http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.007

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, 2 Vols., Henry Holt., New York. Retrieved at

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/

Kloter, E., & Dietz, V. (2012). Obstacle avoidance locomotor tasks: adaptation, memory and

skill transfer. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 35(10), 1613-1621.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08066.x

Kim, I. H., Rossi, M. A., Aryal, D. K., Racz, B., Kim, N., Uezu, A., & ... Soderling, S. H. (2015).

Spine pruning drives antipsychotic-sensitive locomotion via circuit control of striatal

dopamine. Nature Neuroscience, 18(6), 883-891. doi:10.1038/nn.4015

Koch, S., Holland, R. W., Hengstler, M., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Body locomotion as

regulatory process: stepping backward enhances cognitive control. Psychological

Science, 20(5), 549-550. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02342.x

Lacasse, K. (2015). Going with your gut: How William James' theory of emotions brings insights

to risk perception and decision making research. New Ideas In Psychology,

doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.09.002

Larsson, K. C., Kjäll, P., & Richter-Dahlfors, A. (2013). Organic bioelectronics for electronic-to

chemical translation in modulation of neuronal signaling and machine-to-brain

interfacing. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta, 1830(9), 4334-4344.

doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.11.024

Maranges, H. M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Comparing cognitive load and

self-regulatory depletion: Effects on emotions and cognitions. Learning And Instruction,

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.01

Primi, R. (2014). Developing a fluid intelligence scale through a combination of Rasch modeling

and cognitive psychology. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 774-788.

doi:10.1037/a0036712

Reel, S., Rouse, S., Vernon, W., & Doherty, P. (2010). Reliability of a two-dimensional footprint

measurement approach. Science & Justice, 50113-118. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2009.11.007

Reel, S., Rouse, S., Vernon, W., & Doherty, P. (2012). Estimation of stature from static and

dynamic footprints. Forensic Science International, 219(1-3), 283.e1-5.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.018

Schiebener, J., & Brand, M. (2015). Decision making under objective risk conditions-a

review of cognitive and emotional correlates, strategies, feedback processing, and

external influences. Neuropsychology Review, 25(2), 171-198. doi:10.1007/s11065-015-

9285-x

So, J., Achar, C., Han, D., Agrawal, N., Duhachek, A., & Maheswaran, D. (2015). The

psychology of appraisal: Specific emotions and decision-making. Journal Of Consumer

Psychology, 25(Emotion, Self, and Identity: Implications for and Consequences of

Consumer Behavior), 359-371. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.003

Van Den Eede, F., Moorkens, G., Hulstijn, W., Maas, Y., Schrijvers, D., Stevens, S. R., & ...

Sabbe, B. C. (2011). Psychomotor function and response inhibition in chronic fatigue

syndrome. Psychiatry Research, 186(2-3), 367-372. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2010.07.022

van den Heuvel, O. A., van Wingen, G., Soriano-Mas, C., Alonso, P., Chamberlain, S. R.,

Nakamae, T., & ... Veltman, D. J. (2016). Brain circuitry of compulsivity. European

Neuropsychopharmacology, 26(Compulsivity- a new trans-diagnostic research domain

for the Roadmap for Mental Health Research in Europe (ROAMER) and Research

Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiatives), 810-827. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.12.005

Vernazza-Martin, S., Longuet, S., Damry, T., Chamot, J. M., & Dru, V. (2015). When

locomotion is used to interact with the environment: investigation of the link between

emotions and the twofold goal-directed locomotion in humans. Experimental Brain

Research, 233(10), 2913-2924. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4361-2

Wiener, J. M., Berthoz, A., & Wolbers, T. (2011). Dissociable cognitive mechanisms underlying

human path integration. Experimental Brain Research, 208(1), 61-71.

doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2460-7