↓ Skip to main content

Vibrotactile cuing revisited to reveal a possible challenge to sensorimotor adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vibrotactile cuing revisited to reveal a possible challenge to sensorimotor adaptation
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00221-016-4750-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beom-Chan Lee, Timothy A. Thrasher, Charles S. Layne, Bernard J. Martin

Abstract

Motor responses to unexpected external perturbations require the adjustment of the motor commands driving the ongoing activity. Strategies can be learned with practice to compensate for these unpredictable perturbations (e.g., externally induced slips and trips). It has been hypothesized that response improvements reflect the adaptation of motor commands through updates of an internal model. This hypothesis may be nuanced when a pre-existing motor response could be used. In that case, since a relatively adequate response is known, only the timing of the command needs to be determined. If so, then it could be inferred that the timing of movement initiation and the specific sequence of motor commands can be dissociated. Previously, we quantified the benefits of cuing vs. learning on recovery motor responses resulting from a trip induced by the abrupt stop of one side of a split belt treadmill. Trip occurrence was randomized within a series of strides. Two groups of young adults participated to two distinct experiments (learning, cuing). In the learning experiment, trip recovery improved progressively from the 4th to the 8th trial to reach an "adapted response". In the cuing experiment, trip recovery was immediate (from 1st trial). Expanding from these results, the aim of the present work was to differentiate the processes underlying the generation of motor compensation strategies in response to an external perturbation under time uncertainty. A supplementary analysis revealed that "cued" responses were kinematically similar to the "adapted response" and remained invariant regardless of cue lead time (250, 500 ms before trip) and application location of the cue (arm, trunk, lower leg). It is posited that all responses (cued and non-cued) are the expression of a pre-existing motor program derived from life experiences. Here, the cue significantly reduces time uncertainty and adaptation consists primarily in resolving time uncertainty based on the trial-by-trial learning of the stochastic property of trip occurrence in order to reduce the response delay. Hence, response time delay and motor program parameters appear to stem from two distinct processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 18%
Psychology 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,476,177
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,607
of 3,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,929
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#16
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,234 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 364,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.