↓ Skip to main content

The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00221-013-3690-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Marchal-Crespo, Mark van Raai, Georg Rauter, Peter Wolf, Robert Riener

Abstract

While haptic guidance can improve ongoing performance of a motor task, several studies have found that it ultimately impairs motor learning. However, some recent studies suggest that the haptic demonstration of optimal timing, rather than movement magnitude, enhances learning in subjects trained with haptic guidance. Timing of an action plays a crucial role in the proper accomplishment of many motor skills, such as hitting a moving object (discrete timing task) or learning a velocity profile (time-critical tracking task). The aim of the present study is to evaluate which feedback conditions-visual or haptic guidance-optimize learning of the discrete and continuous elements of a timing task. The experiment consisted in performing a fast tennis forehand stroke in a virtual environment. A tendon-based parallel robot connected to the end of a racket was used to apply haptic guidance during training. In two different experiments, we evaluated which feedback condition was more adequate for learning: (1) a time-dependent discrete task-learning to start a tennis stroke and (2) a tracking task-learning to follow a velocity profile. The effect that the task difficulty and subject's initial skill level have on the selection of the optimal training condition was further evaluated. Results showed that the training condition that maximizes learning of the discrete time-dependent motor task depends on the subjects' initial skill level. Haptic guidance was especially suitable for less-skilled subjects and in especially difficult discrete tasks, while visual feedback seems to benefit more skilled subjects. Additionally, haptic guidance seemed to promote learning in a time-critical tracking task, while visual feedback tended to deteriorate the performance independently of the task difficulty and subjects' initial skill level. Haptic guidance outperformed visual feedback, although additional studies are needed to further analyze the effect of other types of feedback visualization on motor learning of time-critical tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 181 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 21%
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 21 11%
Professor 10 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 41 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 48 25%
Neuroscience 18 10%
Psychology 17 9%
Sports and Recreations 15 8%
Computer Science 13 7%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 51 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,696,782
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,382
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,396
of 197,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#25
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.