Cargando…

The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance

BACKGROUND: Torso-based vibrotactile feedback has been shown to improve postural performance during quiet and perturbed stance in healthy young and older adults and individuals with balance impairments. These systems typically include tactors distributed around the torso that are activated when body...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kinnaird, Catherine, Lee, Jaehong, Carender, Wendy J., Kabeto, Mohammed, Martin, Bernard, Sienko, Kathleen H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26983996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0131-z
_version_ 1782421409008451584
author Kinnaird, Catherine
Lee, Jaehong
Carender, Wendy J.
Kabeto, Mohammed
Martin, Bernard
Sienko, Kathleen H.
author_facet Kinnaird, Catherine
Lee, Jaehong
Carender, Wendy J.
Kabeto, Mohammed
Martin, Bernard
Sienko, Kathleen H.
author_sort Kinnaird, Catherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Torso-based vibrotactile feedback has been shown to improve postural performance during quiet and perturbed stance in healthy young and older adults and individuals with balance impairments. These systems typically include tactors distributed around the torso that are activated when body motion exceeds a predefined threshold. Users are instructed to “move away from the vibration”. However, recent studies have shown that in the absence of instructions, vibrotactile stimulation induces small (~1°) non-volitional responses in the direction of its application location. It was hypothesized that an attractive cuing strategy (i.e., “move toward the vibration”) could improve postural performance by leveraging this natural tendency. FINDINGS: Eight healthy older adults participated in two non-consecutive days of computerized dynamic posturography testing while wearing a vibrotactile feedback system comprised of an inertial measurement unit and four tactors that were activated in pairs when body motion exceeded 1° anteriorly or posteriorly. A crossover design was used. On each day participants performed 24 repetitions of Sensory Organization Test condition 5 (SOT5), three repetitions each of SOT 1–6, three repetitions of the Motor Control Test, and five repetitions of the Adaptation Test. Performance metrics included A/P RMS, Time-in-zone and 95 % CI Ellipse. Performance improved with both cuing strategies but participants performed better when using repulsive cues. However, the rate of improvement was greater for attractive versus repulsive cuing. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that when the cutaneous signal is interpreted as an alarm, cognition overrides sensory information. Furthermore, although repulsive cues resulted in better performance, attractive cues may be as good, if not better, than repulsive cues following extended training.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4793655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47936552016-03-17 The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance Kinnaird, Catherine Lee, Jaehong Carender, Wendy J. Kabeto, Mohammed Martin, Bernard Sienko, Kathleen H. J Neuroeng Rehabil Short Report BACKGROUND: Torso-based vibrotactile feedback has been shown to improve postural performance during quiet and perturbed stance in healthy young and older adults and individuals with balance impairments. These systems typically include tactors distributed around the torso that are activated when body motion exceeds a predefined threshold. Users are instructed to “move away from the vibration”. However, recent studies have shown that in the absence of instructions, vibrotactile stimulation induces small (~1°) non-volitional responses in the direction of its application location. It was hypothesized that an attractive cuing strategy (i.e., “move toward the vibration”) could improve postural performance by leveraging this natural tendency. FINDINGS: Eight healthy older adults participated in two non-consecutive days of computerized dynamic posturography testing while wearing a vibrotactile feedback system comprised of an inertial measurement unit and four tactors that were activated in pairs when body motion exceeded 1° anteriorly or posteriorly. A crossover design was used. On each day participants performed 24 repetitions of Sensory Organization Test condition 5 (SOT5), three repetitions each of SOT 1–6, three repetitions of the Motor Control Test, and five repetitions of the Adaptation Test. Performance metrics included A/P RMS, Time-in-zone and 95 % CI Ellipse. Performance improved with both cuing strategies but participants performed better when using repulsive cues. However, the rate of improvement was greater for attractive versus repulsive cuing. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that when the cutaneous signal is interpreted as an alarm, cognition overrides sensory information. Furthermore, although repulsive cues resulted in better performance, attractive cues may be as good, if not better, than repulsive cues following extended training. BioMed Central 2016-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4793655/ /pubmed/26983996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0131-z Text en © Kinnaird et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Short Report
Kinnaird, Catherine
Lee, Jaehong
Carender, Wendy J.
Kabeto, Mohammed
Martin, Bernard
Sienko, Kathleen H.
The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title_full The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title_fullStr The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title_full_unstemmed The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title_short The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
title_sort effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26983996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0131-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kinnairdcatherine theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT leejaehong theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT carenderwendyj theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT kabetomohammed theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT martinbernard theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT sienkokathleenh theeffectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT kinnairdcatherine effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT leejaehong effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT carenderwendyj effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT kabetomohammed effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT martinbernard effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance
AT sienkokathleenh effectsofattractivevsrepulsiveinstructionalcuingonbalanceperformance