↓ Skip to main content

More Feedback Is Better than Less: Learning a Novel Upper Limb Joint Coordination Pattern with Augmented Auditory Feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
More Feedback Is Better than Less: Learning a Novel Upper Limb Joint Coordination Pattern with Augmented Auditory Feedback
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinya Fujii, Tea Lulic, Joyce L. Chen

Abstract

Motor learning is a process whereby the acquisition of new skills occurs with practice, and can be influenced by the provision of feedback. An important question is what frequency of feedback facilitates motor learning. The guidance hypothesis assumes that the provision of less augmented feedback is better than more because a learner can use his/her own inherent feedback. However, it is unclear whether this hypothesis holds true for all types of augmented feedback, including for example sonified information about performance. Thus, we aimed to test what frequency of augmented sonified feedback facilitates the motor learning of a novel joint coordination pattern. Twenty healthy volunteers first reached to a target with their arm (baseline phase). We manipulated this baseline kinematic data for each individual to create a novel target joint coordination pattern. Participants then practiced to learn the novel target joint coordination pattern, receiving either feedback on every trial i.e., 100% feedback (n = 10), or every other trial, i.e., 50% feedback (n = 10; acquisition phase). We created a sonification system to provide the feedback. This feedback was a pure tone that varied in intensity in proportion to the error of the performed joint coordination relative to the target pattern. Thus, the auditory feedback contained information about performance in real-time (i.e., "concurrent, knowledge of performance feedback"). Participants performed the novel joint coordination pattern with no-feedback immediately after the acquisition phase (immediate retention phase), and on the next day (delayed retention phase). The root-mean squared error (RMSE) and variable error (VE) of joint coordination were significantly reduced during the acquisition phase in both 100 and 50% feedback groups. There was no significant difference in VE between the groups at immediate and delayed retention phases. However, at both these retention phases, the 100% feedback group showed significantly smaller RMSE than the 50% group. Thus, contrary to the guidance hypothesis, our findings suggest that the provision of more, concurrent knowledge of performance auditory feedback during the acquisition of a novel joint coordination pattern, may result in better skill retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 14%
Sports and Recreations 13 13%
Psychology 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Engineering 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,290,633
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,005
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,031
of 355,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#64
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 355,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 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 62% of its contemporaries.