ArticleJournal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)2015
The perturbation paradigm modulates error-based learning in a highly automated task: outcomes in swallowing kinematics.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human-AI collaboration for dysphagia rehabilitation from effectiveness to implementation complexity: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Effects of Submental Surface Electrical Stimulation on Swallowing Kinematics in Healthy Adults: An Error-Based Learning Paradigm.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2018Article
- The effect of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation on laryngeal vestibule closure timing in swallowing.BMC ear, nose, and throat disorders · 2018Article
- Examination of swallowing maneuver training and transfer of practiced behaviors to laryngeal vestibule kinematics in functional swallowing of healthy adults.Physiology & behavior · 2017Article
- Effects of chin-up posture on the sequence of swallowing events.Head & neck · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.