↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of haptic guidance and error amplification robotic trainings for the learning of a timing-based motor task by healthy seniors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Comparison of haptic guidance and error amplification robotic trainings for the learning of a timing-based motor task by healthy seniors
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy E. Bouchard, Hélène Corriveau, Marie-Hélène Milot

Abstract

With age, a decline in the temporal aspect of movement is observed such as a longer movement execution time and a decreased timing accuracy. Robotic training can represent an interesting approach to help improve movement timing among the elderly. Two types of robotic training-haptic guidance (HG; demonstrating the correct movement for a better movement planning and improved execution of movement) and error amplification (EA; exaggerating movement errors to have a more rapid and complete learning) have been positively used in young healthy subjects to boost timing accuracy. For healthy seniors, only HG training has been used so far where significant and positive timing gains have been obtained. The goal of the study was to evaluate and compare the impact of both HG and EA robotic trainings on the improvement of seniors' movement timing. Thirty-two healthy seniors (mean age 68 ± 4 years) learned to play a pinball-like game by triggering a one-degree-of-freedom hand robot at the proper time to make a flipper move and direct a falling ball toward a randomly positioned target. During HG and EA robotic trainings, the subjects' timing errors were decreased and increased, respectively, based on the subjects' timing errors in initiating a movement. Results showed that only HG training benefited learning, but the improvement did not generalize to untrained targets. Also, age had no influence on the efficacy of HG robotic training, meaning that the oldest subjects did not benefit more from HG training than the younger senior subjects. Using HG to teach the correct timing of movement seems to be a good strategy to improve motor learning for the elderly as for younger people. However, more studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of HG robotic training on improvement in movement timing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 42 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 27%
Psychology 7 16%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
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 12 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,402,666
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#1,128
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,628
of 264,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#45
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 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 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 264,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.