Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26023226›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)2015

The perturbation paradigm modulates error-based learning in a highly automated task: outcomes in swallowing kinematics.

C Anderson, P Macrae, I Taylor-Kamara, S Serel, A Vose, I A Humbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C AndersonSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
P MacraeSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
I Taylor-KamaraSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
S SerelSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
A VoseSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
I A HumbertSwallowing Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Physical, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland ihumber1@jhmi.edu.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

NIDCD NIH HHS 1R01-DC-01428501A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional motor learning studies focus on highly goal-oriented, volitional tasks that often do not readily generalize to real-world movements. The goal of this study was to investigate how different perturbation paradigms alter error-based learning outcomes in a highly automated task. Swallowing was perturbed with neck surface electrical stimulation that opposes hyo-laryngeal elevation in 25 healthy adults (30 swallows: 10 preperturbation, 10 perturbation, and 10 postperturbation). The four study conditions were gradual-masked, gradual-unmasked, abrupt-masked, and abrupt-unmasked. Gradual perturbations increasingly intensified overtime, while abrupt perturbations were sustained at the same high intensity. The masked conditions reduced cues about the presence/absence of the perturbation (pre- and postperturbation periods had low stimulation), but unmasked conditions did not (pre- and postperturbation periods had no stimulation). Only hyo-laryngeal range of motion measures had significant outcomes; no timing measure demonstrated learning. Systematic-error reduction occurred only during the abrupt-masked and abrupt-unmasked perturbations. Only the abrupt-masked perturbation caused aftereffects. In this highly automated task, gradual perturbations did not induce learning similarly to findings of some volitional, goal-oriented adaptation task studies. Furthermore, our subtle and brief adjustment of the stimulation paradigm (masked vs. unmasked) determined whether aftereffects were present. This suggests that, in the unmasked group, sensory predictions of a motor plan were quickly and efficiently modified to disengage error-based learning behaviors.

Indexed as

DeglutitionLearningMotor ActivityAdaptation, PhysiologicalAdaptation, PsychologicalAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaCuesElectric StimulationElectromyographyEsophagusFemaleFluoroscopyGoalsHumansLarynxadaptationdeglutitionlearning

Identifiers

PMID26023226
PMCPMC4538282
OpenAlexW2175104924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.