Differences in tactile sensation and body composition between the front and back of the total body in healthy volunteers

Kim, Sojung; Kim, Junghwan

doi:10.1007/s13530-017-0306-4

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We determined the vibration thresholds and asked the subjects to rate suprathreshold vibration stimuli regarding how convenient/inconvenient they perceived the stimuli on a 7-level Likert scale to identify a pleasant, non-disturbing intensity. As it already has been observed in previous studies [26], differences in tactile sensation between back and front motors were visible, showing a lower sensitivity at the back, and thus a higher vibration threshold. Consequently, for the user study a motor intensity of 120% of average vibration threshold of the two back motors (VT back ) was used for the feedback applied by the front motors, whereas for the back it was set to 130%.…”

Section: Pre-study -Specifications For Vibrotactile Biofeedbacksupporting

confidence: 84%

Immediate Effects of Vibrotactile Biofeedback Instructions on Human Postural Control

Tannert

Schulleri

Michel

et al. 2021

2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine &Amp; Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vibrotactile biofeedback can improve balance and consequently be helpful in fall prevention. However, it remains unclear how different types of stimulus presentations affect not only trunk tilt, but also Center of Pressure (CoP) displacements, and whether an instruction on how to move contributes to a better understanding of vibrotactile feedback.Based on lower back tilt angles (L5), we applied individualized multi-directional vibrotactile feedback to the upper torso by a haptic vest in 30 healthy young adults. Subjects were equally distributed to three instruction groups (attractive -move in the direction of feedback, repulsive -move in the opposite direction of feedback & no instruction -with attractive stimuli). We conducted four conditions with eyes closed (feedback on/off, Narrow Stance with head extended, Semi-Tandem stance), with seven trials of 45s each. For CoP and L5, we computed Root Mean Square (RMS) of position/angle and standard deviation (SD) of velocity, and for L5 additionally, the percentage in time above threshold. The analysis consisted of mixed model ANOVAs and t-tests (α-level: 0.05).Feedback decreased RMS of L5, whereas RMS of CoP and SD of velocity in L5 and COP increased (p<0.05). Further, in the attractive and repulsive groups feedback significantly decreased the percentage above threshold (p<0.05).Both attractive and repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback provided by a haptic vest had a positive effect on lower trunk tilt with a slight advantage for the repulsive feedback. However, it did not reduce the underlying control effort, which might be due to a CoM stabilizing strategy. Further kinematic measurements are needed for a clear conclusion about the used strategy. Finally, an instruction on how to move contributed to a better understanding of the vibrotactile biofeedback.

show abstract

Section: Pre-study -Specifications For Vibrotactile Biofeedbacksupporting

confidence: 84%

Immediate Effects of Vibrotactile Biofeedback Instructions on Human Postural Control

Tannert

Schulleri

Michel

et al. 2021

2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine &Amp; Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?

Schulleri,

Feizian,

Steinböck

et al. 2024

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Directional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved. Methods In two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed. Results Both Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally. Conclusions The effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.

show abstract

Differences in tactile sensation and body composition between the front and back of the total body in healthy volunteers

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

Immediate Effects of Vibrotactile Biofeedback Instructions on Human Postural Control

Immediate Effects of Vibrotactile Biofeedback Instructions on Human Postural Control

Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About