ArticlePloS one2020
Exploring disturbance as a force for good in motor learning.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brain-computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disturbance forces facilitate motor learning, but theoretical explanations for this counterintuitive phenomenon are lacking. Smooth arm movements require predictions (inference) about the force-field associated with a workspace. The Free Energy Principle (FEP) suggests that such 'active inference' is driven by 'surprise'. We used these insights to create a formal model that explains why disturbance might help learning. In two experiments, participants undertook a continuous tracking task where they learned how to move their arm in different directions through a novel 3D force field. We compared baseline performance before and after exposure to the novel field to quantify learning. In Experiment 1, the exposure phases (but not the baseline measures) were delivered under three different conditions: (i) robot haptic assistance; (ii) no guidance; (iii) robot haptic disturbance. The disturbance group showed the best learning as our model predicted. Experiment 2 further tested our FEP inspired model. Assistive and/or disturbance forces were applied as a function of performance (low surprise), and compared to a random error manipulation (high surprise). The random group showed the most improvement as predicted by the model. Thus, motor learning can be conceptualised as a process of entropy reduction. Short term motor strategies (e.g. global impedance) can mitigate unexpected perturbations, but continuous movements require active inference about external force-fields in order to create accurate internal models of the external world (motor learning). Our findings reconcile research on the relationship between noise, variability, and motor learning, and show that information is the currency of motor learning.
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.