↓ Skip to main content

Time flies when you are in a groove: using entrainment to mechanical resonance to teach a desired movement distorts the perception of the movement’s timing

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Time flies when you are in a groove: using entrainment to mechanical resonance to teach a desired movement distorts the perception of the movement’s timing
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00221-013-3819-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel K. Zondervan, Jaime E. Duarte, Justin B. Rowe, David J. Reinkensmeyer

Abstract

The human motor system quickly entrains rhythmic limb movement to the resonant frequency of mechanical systems with which it interacts, suggesting that entrainment to an appropriately designed training device might be a convenient way to teach desired movements. We tested this possibility by asking healthy subjects (N = 30) to learn to move with a desired movement timing using a simple resonating arm training device: a lever attached to a manual wheelchair. The subjects tried to learn to roll the lever-driven wheelchair back and forth in place at a target frequency initially presented using a series of auditory beeps. One-third of the subjects trained without resonance and with no further feedback about rolling frequency; their performance did not improve. Another group trained with continual visual feedback of frequency error but no resonance; they quickly learned to roll the chair at the target frequency, as evidenced at both short-term and long-term (1 day later) retention tests. A third group trained with elastic bands attached to the lever that caused the system to resonate at the target frequency, providing a timing template. While these participants quickly entrained to the target frequency during training, they did not accurately reproduce this frequency when the system was no longer resonant, moving too slowly with the same systematic error at both the short-term and long-term retention tests. They also did not exhibit a timing aftereffect on the initial movements made when they transitioned from a resonant to non-resonant system or vice versa. This suggests they did not realize they were performing the task with a temporal error. Entrainment to mechanical resonance conveys usable information about movement timing, but seems to cause that movement timing to be perceived as slower than it actually is, as if a putative internal clock speeds up, which is a factor to consider in designing machine-assisted motor training.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Engineering 6 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 9%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 8 15%
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 10 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,290,667
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,005
of 3,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,399
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,219 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.