ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Effects of Altered Haptic Feedback Gain Upon Balance Are Explained by Sensory Conflict Estimation.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirectional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved.
methodsIn two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed.
resultsBoth Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally.
conclusionsThe effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.
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.