↓ Skip to main content

It Pays to Go Off-Track: Practicing with Error-Augmenting Haptic Feedback Facilitates Learning of a Curve-Tracing Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
It Pays to Go Off-Track: Practicing with Error-Augmenting Haptic Feedback Facilitates Learning of a Curve-Tracing Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille K. Williams, Luc Tremblay, Heather Carnahan

Abstract

Researchers in the domain of haptic training are now entering the long-standing debate regarding whether or not it is best to learn a skill by experiencing errors. Haptic training paradigms provide fertile ground for exploring how various theories about feedback, errors and physical guidance intersect during motor learning. Our objective was to determine how error minimizing, error augmenting and no haptic feedback while learning a self-paced curve-tracing task impact performance on delayed (1 day) retention and transfer tests, which indicate learning. We assessed performance using movement time and tracing error to calculate a measure of overall performance - the speed accuracy cost function. Our results showed that despite exhibiting the worst performance during skill acquisition, the error augmentation group had significantly better accuracy (but not overall performance) than the error minimization group on delayed retention and transfer tests. The control group's performance fell between that of the two experimental groups but was not significantly different from either on the delayed retention test. We propose that the nature of the task (requiring online feedback to guide performance) coupled with the error augmentation group's frequent off-target experience and rich experience of error-correction promoted information processing related to error-detection and error-correction that are essential for motor learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 17%
Psychology 5 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,301,424
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,115
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,531
of 423,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#117
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 423,168 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 427 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 72% of its contemporaries.