Limits...
Bimanual Coordination Learning with Different Augmented Feedback Modalities and Information Types.

Chiou SC, Chang EC - PLoS ONE (2016)

Bottom Line: Previous studies have shown that bimanual coordination learning is more resistant to the removal of augmented feedback when acquired with auditory than with visual channel.The results showed diverse performance change after practice when the feedback was removed between Lissajous and the other two rhythmic groups, indicating that the guidance effect may be modulated by the type of information provided during practice.Moreover, significant performance improvement in the dual-task condition where the irregular rhythm counting task was applied as a secondary task also suggested that lower involvement of conscious control may result in better performance in bimanual coordination.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown that bimanual coordination learning is more resistant to the removal of augmented feedback when acquired with auditory than with visual channel. However, it is unclear whether this differential "guidance effect" between feedback modalities is due to enhanced sensorimotor integration via the non-dominant auditory channel or strengthened linkage to kinesthetic information under rhythmic input. The current study aimed to examine how modalities (visual vs. auditory) and information types (continuous visuospatial vs. discrete rhythmic) of concurrent augmented feedback influence bimanual coordination learning. Participants either learned a 90°-out-of-phase pattern for three consecutive days with Lissajous feedback indicating the integrated position of both arms, or with visual or auditory rhythmic feedback reflecting the relative timing of the movement. The results showed diverse performance change after practice when the feedback was removed between Lissajous and the other two rhythmic groups, indicating that the guidance effect may be modulated by the type of information provided during practice. Moreover, significant performance improvement in the dual-task condition where the irregular rhythm counting task was applied as a secondary task also suggested that lower involvement of conscious control may result in better performance in bimanual coordination.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Experimental protocol.In the practice phase, participants practiced for three blocks per day (10 trials/block, 40 s/trial) with augmented feedback. After practicing for three consecutive days, two sessions of the no-feedback transfer test were applied on day 3 (immediate test) and day 4 (24-hour retention test), respectively. Finally, in the dual-task interference session, participants performed three different types of irregular rhythm counting tasks (each type for one block, 10 trials/block, 25 s/trial) concurrently with the motor task. Two “single-task” blocks (motor task only without augmented feedback) were interleaved between the interference blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4764518&req=5

pone.0149221.g003: Experimental protocol.In the practice phase, participants practiced for three blocks per day (10 trials/block, 40 s/trial) with augmented feedback. After practicing for three consecutive days, two sessions of the no-feedback transfer test were applied on day 3 (immediate test) and day 4 (24-hour retention test), respectively. Finally, in the dual-task interference session, participants performed three different types of irregular rhythm counting tasks (each type for one block, 10 trials/block, 25 s/trial) concurrently with the motor task. Two “single-task” blocks (motor task only without augmented feedback) were interleaved between the interference blocks.

Mentions: In the practice phase, participants learned to perform the 90°-out-of-phase coordination pattern with the concurrent augmented feedback for three consecutive days. They practiced for three blocks per day, and each block contained 10 trials (Fig 3). Within each trial, participants would first see a preparation notice, and they were requested to set their forearms at the preparation positions before a new trial started. Preparation positions were the middle points of the movement paths, approximately aligned with the width of the shoulders. After the preparation notice, participants would observe the ideal feedback pattern for 10 seconds, demonstrating how the feedback looked or heard if performing the movement correctly (Fig 2A–2C. Also see “Tasks and groups” in Method section for more details about the ideal feedback pattern presented in each group. Movement frequency was set at 0.8 Hz in all three conditions, which most participants in a pilot experiment can use the feedback information without difficulties and gain steady improvements during practice). Following the demonstration, participants practiced for 40 seconds. They were instructed to reproduce the ideal feedback pattern as best as they could by the arm movements. The display of the ideal feedback pattern at the beginning of each trial was to strengthen the mental image of the movement target and thus facilitate error correction process. In addition, before starting the practice each day, participants were reminded again of the guidelines about the task, including “try to move the arms continuously and smoothly without any sudden acceleration or deceleration”, “try to reproduce the trajectory (or the rhythm) as similar as the ideal one”, and also, “remember that the arm movement can control the cursor (or the appearance of the discs and the tones)”. One practice block lasted approximately 10 minutes. Participants took a short break between blocks, usually for one to three minutes as they desired.


Bimanual Coordination Learning with Different Augmented Feedback Modalities and Information Types.

Chiou SC, Chang EC - PLoS ONE (2016)

Experimental protocol.In the practice phase, participants practiced for three blocks per day (10 trials/block, 40 s/trial) with augmented feedback. After practicing for three consecutive days, two sessions of the no-feedback transfer test were applied on day 3 (immediate test) and day 4 (24-hour retention test), respectively. Finally, in the dual-task interference session, participants performed three different types of irregular rhythm counting tasks (each type for one block, 10 trials/block, 25 s/trial) concurrently with the motor task. Two “single-task” blocks (motor task only without augmented feedback) were interleaved between the interference blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4764518&req=5

pone.0149221.g003: Experimental protocol.In the practice phase, participants practiced for three blocks per day (10 trials/block, 40 s/trial) with augmented feedback. After practicing for three consecutive days, two sessions of the no-feedback transfer test were applied on day 3 (immediate test) and day 4 (24-hour retention test), respectively. Finally, in the dual-task interference session, participants performed three different types of irregular rhythm counting tasks (each type for one block, 10 trials/block, 25 s/trial) concurrently with the motor task. Two “single-task” blocks (motor task only without augmented feedback) were interleaved between the interference blocks.
Mentions: In the practice phase, participants learned to perform the 90°-out-of-phase coordination pattern with the concurrent augmented feedback for three consecutive days. They practiced for three blocks per day, and each block contained 10 trials (Fig 3). Within each trial, participants would first see a preparation notice, and they were requested to set their forearms at the preparation positions before a new trial started. Preparation positions were the middle points of the movement paths, approximately aligned with the width of the shoulders. After the preparation notice, participants would observe the ideal feedback pattern for 10 seconds, demonstrating how the feedback looked or heard if performing the movement correctly (Fig 2A–2C. Also see “Tasks and groups” in Method section for more details about the ideal feedback pattern presented in each group. Movement frequency was set at 0.8 Hz in all three conditions, which most participants in a pilot experiment can use the feedback information without difficulties and gain steady improvements during practice). Following the demonstration, participants practiced for 40 seconds. They were instructed to reproduce the ideal feedback pattern as best as they could by the arm movements. The display of the ideal feedback pattern at the beginning of each trial was to strengthen the mental image of the movement target and thus facilitate error correction process. In addition, before starting the practice each day, participants were reminded again of the guidelines about the task, including “try to move the arms continuously and smoothly without any sudden acceleration or deceleration”, “try to reproduce the trajectory (or the rhythm) as similar as the ideal one”, and also, “remember that the arm movement can control the cursor (or the appearance of the discs and the tones)”. One practice block lasted approximately 10 minutes. Participants took a short break between blocks, usually for one to three minutes as they desired.

Bottom Line: Previous studies have shown that bimanual coordination learning is more resistant to the removal of augmented feedback when acquired with auditory than with visual channel.The results showed diverse performance change after practice when the feedback was removed between Lissajous and the other two rhythmic groups, indicating that the guidance effect may be modulated by the type of information provided during practice.Moreover, significant performance improvement in the dual-task condition where the irregular rhythm counting task was applied as a secondary task also suggested that lower involvement of conscious control may result in better performance in bimanual coordination.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown that bimanual coordination learning is more resistant to the removal of augmented feedback when acquired with auditory than with visual channel. However, it is unclear whether this differential "guidance effect" between feedback modalities is due to enhanced sensorimotor integration via the non-dominant auditory channel or strengthened linkage to kinesthetic information under rhythmic input. The current study aimed to examine how modalities (visual vs. auditory) and information types (continuous visuospatial vs. discrete rhythmic) of concurrent augmented feedback influence bimanual coordination learning. Participants either learned a 90°-out-of-phase pattern for three consecutive days with Lissajous feedback indicating the integrated position of both arms, or with visual or auditory rhythmic feedback reflecting the relative timing of the movement. The results showed diverse performance change after practice when the feedback was removed between Lissajous and the other two rhythmic groups, indicating that the guidance effect may be modulated by the type of information provided during practice. Moreover, significant performance improvement in the dual-task condition where the irregular rhythm counting task was applied as a secondary task also suggested that lower involvement of conscious control may result in better performance in bimanual coordination.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus