Back

Augmenting visual errors or variability does not enhance motor learning in remote web application tasks

Nakano, N.; Murai, A.

2024-05-10 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.05.10.593506 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Laboratory experiments employing robotic manipulandum are far from achieving their goal of helping people improve their motor learning. Remote experiments using web applications are an effective tool for bridging the gap between robotic manipulandum experiments in the laboratory and general motor tasks outside. However, the influence of interventions that increase error or variability in remote motor tasks on motor learning has not yet been determined. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the effects of interventions that visually increase errors and variability in remote experiments using web applications. In particular, 48 people participated in a web-based study on the cursor-manipulation of motor tasks using laptops. Three motor tasks (visuomotor-rotation reaching, virtual curling, and virtual ball-throwing tasks) were conducted, and each task consisted of 120 trials a day conducted for three days in this study. For each task, no intervention was provided on Day 1 and the intervention to augment motor error or variability was provided on Days 2 and 3. Differences between the groups in post-intervention test trials were examined using statistical analyses. Contrary to our expectations, the interventions of error-augmentation did not exhibit positive effects in Experiments 1 and 2, which could be attributed to a lack of haptic and proprioceptive information or inaccuracies in movement kinematics. In addition, the interventions of variability-augmentation did not exhibit positive effects in Experiment 3, which could be attributed to the complex dynamics in the relationship between perceived body movements and motor outcomes. Further research is required to identify the differences between the conditions when the interventions are effective or ineffective. Moreover, interventions must be developed to further improve general motor skills.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
9.0%
3
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.9%
4
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
5
Human Movement Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
7
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
8
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
9
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
10
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
11
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
12
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
17
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.3%
18
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.1%
20
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
22
Neuroscience
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
24
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Vision Research
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
26
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%