Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30837824›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019

Haptic Error Modulation Outperforms Visual Error Amplification When Learning a Modified Gait Pattern.

Laura Marchal-Crespo, Panagiotis Tsangaridis, David Obwegeser, Serena Maggioni, Robert Riener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Human-machine-human interaction in motor control and rehabilitation: a review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Individualized feedback to change multiple gait deficits in chronic stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

5 authors.

Laura Marchal-CrespoGerontechnology and Rehabilitation Group, ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Panagiotis TsangaridisSensory-Motor Systems (SMS) Lab, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS), Department of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
David ObwegeserSensory-Motor Systems (SMS) Lab, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS), Department of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Serena MaggioniSensory-Motor Systems (SMS) Lab, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS), Department of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Robert RienerSensory-Motor Systems (SMS) Lab, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS), Department of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic algorithms that augment movement errors have been proposed as promising training strategies to enhance motor learning and neurorehabilitation. However, most research effort has focused on rehabilitation of upper limbs, probably because large movement errors are especially dangerous during gait training, as they might result in stumbling and falling. Furthermore, systematic large movement errors might limit the participants' motivation during training. In this study, we investigated the effect of training with novel error modulating strategies, which guarantee a safe training environment, on motivation and learning of a modified asymmetric gait pattern. Thirty healthy young participants walked in the exoskeletal robotic system Lokomat while performing a foot target-tracking task, which required an increased hip and knee flexion in the dominant leg. Learning the asymmetric gait pattern with three different strategies was evaluated: (i) No disturbance: no robot disturbance/guidance was applied, (ii) haptic error amplification: unsafe and discouraging large errors were limited with haptic guidance, while haptic error amplification enhanced awareness of small errors relevant for learning, and (iii) visual error amplification: visually observed errors were amplified in a virtual reality environment. We also evaluated whether increasing the movement variability during training by adding randomly varying haptic disturbances on top of the other training strategies further enhances learning. We analyzed participants' motor performance and self-reported intrinsic motivation before, during and after training. We found that training with the novel haptic error amplification strategy did not hamper motor adaptation and enhanced transfer of the practiced asymmetric gait pattern to free walking. Training with visual error amplification, on the other hand, increased errors during training and hampered motor learning. Participants who trained with visual error amplification also reported a reduced perceived competence. Adding haptic disturbance increased the movement variability during training, but did not have a significant effect on motor adaptation, probably because training with haptic disturbance on top of visual and haptic error amplification decreased the participants' feelings of competence. The proposed novel haptic error modulating controller that amplifies small task-relevant errors while limiting large errors outperformed visual error augmentation and might provide a promising framework to improve robotic gait training outcomes in neurological patients.

Indexed as

error amplificationforce disturbancehaptic guidancemotor adaptationmotor learningrehabilitation roboticsrobotic gait-trainingvisual feedback

Identifiers

PMID30837824
PMCPMC6390202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.