↓ Skip to main content

The simplest acquisition protocol is sometimes the best protocol: performing and learning a 1:2 bimanual coordination task

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
The simplest acquisition protocol is sometimes the best protocol: performing and learning a 1:2 bimanual coordination task
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00221-017-5153-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Panzer, Deanna Kennedy, Chaoyi Wang, Charles H. Shea

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine if the performance and learning of a multi-frequency (1:2) coordination pattern between the limbs are enhanced when a model is provided prior to each acquisition trial. Research has indicated very effective performance of a wide variety of bimanual coordination tasks when Lissajous plots with goal templates are provided, but this research has also found that participants become dependent on this information and perform quite poorly when it is withdrawn. The present experiment was designed to test three forms of modeling (Lissajous with template, Lissajous without template, and limb model), but in each situations, the model was presented prior to practice and not available during the performance of the task. This was done to decrease dependency on the model and increase the development of an internal reference of correctness that could be applied on test trials. A control condition was also collected, where a metronome was used to guide the movement. Following less than 7 min of practice, participants in the three modeling conditions performed the first test block very effectively; however, performance of the control condition was quite poor. Note that Test 1 was performed under the same conditions as used during acquisition. Test 2 was conducted with no augmented information provided prior to or during the performance of the task. Only participants in the limb model condition were able to maintain performance on Test 2. The findings suggest that a very simple intuitive display can provide the necessary information to form an effective internal representation of the coordination pattern which can be used guide performance when the augmented display is withdrawn.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 21%
Psychology 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Sports and Recreations 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,486
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,234
of 439,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#36
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 439,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.