Cargando…

Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway

Augmented sensory biofeedback training is often used to improve postural control. Our previous study showed that continuous auditory biofeedback was more effective than continuous visual biofeedback to improve postural sway while standing. However, it has also been reported that both discrete visual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasegawa, Naoya, Takeda, Kenta, Mancini, Martina, King, Laurie A., Horak, Fay B., Asaka, Tadayoshi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7769480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33370408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244583
_version_ 1783629335667671040
author Hasegawa, Naoya
Takeda, Kenta
Mancini, Martina
King, Laurie A.
Horak, Fay B.
Asaka, Tadayoshi
author_facet Hasegawa, Naoya
Takeda, Kenta
Mancini, Martina
King, Laurie A.
Horak, Fay B.
Asaka, Tadayoshi
author_sort Hasegawa, Naoya
collection PubMed
description Augmented sensory biofeedback training is often used to improve postural control. Our previous study showed that continuous auditory biofeedback was more effective than continuous visual biofeedback to improve postural sway while standing. However, it has also been reported that both discrete visual and auditory biofeedback training, presented intermittently, improves bimanual task performance more than continuous visual biofeedback training. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relative effectiveness of discrete visual biofeedback versus discrete auditory biofeedback to improve postural control. Twenty-two healthy young adults were randomly assigned to either a visual or auditory biofeedback group. Participants were asked to shift their center of pressure (COP) by voluntary postural sway forward and backward in line with a hidden target, which moved in a sinusoidal manner and was displayed intermittently. Participants were asked to decrease the diameter of a visual circle (visual biofeedback) or the volume of a sound (auditory biofeedback) based on the distance between the COP and the target in the training session. The feedback and the target were given only when the target reached the inflection points of the sine curves. In addition, the perceptual magnitudes of visual and auditory biofeedback were equalized using Stevens’ power law. Results showed that the mean and standard deviation of the distance between COP and the target were reduced int the test session, removing the augmented sensory biofeedback, in both biofeedback training groups. However, the temporal domain of the performance improved in the test session in the auditory biofeedback training group, but not in the visual biofeedback training group. In conclusion, discrete auditory biofeedback training was more effective for the motor learning of voluntarily postural swaying compared to discrete visual biofeedback training, especially in the temporal domain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7769480
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77694802021-01-08 Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway Hasegawa, Naoya Takeda, Kenta Mancini, Martina King, Laurie A. Horak, Fay B. Asaka, Tadayoshi PLoS One Research Article Augmented sensory biofeedback training is often used to improve postural control. Our previous study showed that continuous auditory biofeedback was more effective than continuous visual biofeedback to improve postural sway while standing. However, it has also been reported that both discrete visual and auditory biofeedback training, presented intermittently, improves bimanual task performance more than continuous visual biofeedback training. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relative effectiveness of discrete visual biofeedback versus discrete auditory biofeedback to improve postural control. Twenty-two healthy young adults were randomly assigned to either a visual or auditory biofeedback group. Participants were asked to shift their center of pressure (COP) by voluntary postural sway forward and backward in line with a hidden target, which moved in a sinusoidal manner and was displayed intermittently. Participants were asked to decrease the diameter of a visual circle (visual biofeedback) or the volume of a sound (auditory biofeedback) based on the distance between the COP and the target in the training session. The feedback and the target were given only when the target reached the inflection points of the sine curves. In addition, the perceptual magnitudes of visual and auditory biofeedback were equalized using Stevens’ power law. Results showed that the mean and standard deviation of the distance between COP and the target were reduced int the test session, removing the augmented sensory biofeedback, in both biofeedback training groups. However, the temporal domain of the performance improved in the test session in the auditory biofeedback training group, but not in the visual biofeedback training group. In conclusion, discrete auditory biofeedback training was more effective for the motor learning of voluntarily postural swaying compared to discrete visual biofeedback training, especially in the temporal domain. Public Library of Science 2020-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7769480/ /pubmed/33370408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244583 Text en © 2020 Hasegawa et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hasegawa, Naoya
Takeda, Kenta
Mancini, Martina
King, Laurie A.
Horak, Fay B.
Asaka, Tadayoshi
Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title_full Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title_fullStr Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title_full_unstemmed Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title_short Differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
title_sort differential effects of visual versus auditory biofeedback training for voluntary postural sway
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7769480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33370408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244583
work_keys_str_mv AT hasegawanaoya differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway
AT takedakenta differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway
AT mancinimartina differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway
AT kinglauriea differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway
AT horakfayb differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway
AT asakatadayoshi differentialeffectsofvisualversusauditorybiofeedbacktrainingforvoluntaryposturalsway