Responses to Achilles tendon vibration during self-paced, visually and auditory-guided periodic sway

Radhakrishnan, Saritha M.; Hatzitaki, Vassilia; Patikas, Dimitrios; Amiridis, Ioannis G.

doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2792-y

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our results, a recent study showed that discrete visual biofeedback training improved bimanual movements under the no-feedback condition after the biofeedback training similarly to discrete auditory biofeedback training, but not continuous visual biofeedback training [18]. Some researchers argue that reduced learning effects by visual biofeedback training are caused by "visual dominance" which is an excessive reliance on visual input with reduced other sensory contributions under the condition with visual biofeedback [35,36]. Therefore, reduced frequency of visual biofeedback during discrete biofeedback training, compared to continuous biofeedback training, may suppress the visual dominance, and then enhance spontaneous motor learning using proprioceptive input that contributes to the performance without biofeedback.…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 90%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 90%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Radhakrishnan et al [22] found that postural responses to Achilles tendon vibration were augmented more by auditory-guided anteroposterior body sway than by visually guided anteroposterior body sway. These researchers suggested that sensory reweighting processes may have decreased the proprioceptive contribution to control of the sway task and increased reliance on visual input in visually guided sway.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning effects of dynamic postural control by auditory biofeedback versus visual biofeedback training

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmented sensory biofeedback (BF) for postural control is widely used to improve postural stability. However, the effective sensory information in BF systems of motor learning for postural control is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning effects of visual versus auditory BF training in dynamic postural control. Eighteen healthy young adults were randomly divided into two groups (visual BF and auditory BF). In test sessions, participants were asked to bring the real-time center of pressure (COP) in line with a hidden target by body sway in the sagittal plane. The target moved in seven cycles of sine curves at 0.23Hz in the vertical direction on a monitor. In training sessions, the visual and auditory BF groups were required to change the magnitude of a visual circle and a sound, respectively, according to the distance between the COP and target in order to reach the target. The perceptual magnitudes of visual and auditory BF were equalized according to Stevens' power law. At the retention test, the auditory but not visual BF group demonstrated decreased postural performance errors in both the spatial and temporal parameters under the no-feedback condition. These findings suggest that visual BF increases the dependence on visual information to control postural performance, while auditory BF may enhance the integration of the proprioceptive sensory system, which contributes to motor learning without BF. These results suggest that auditory BF training improves motor learning of dynamic postural control.

show abstract

“…In practice, voluntary dynamic whole-body weight-shifting tasks that inherently challenge the unidirectional, bidirectional, or multidirectional swaying ability, are commonly employed in exercise interventions aiming to train or restore postural control [28,29]. The voluntary body sway is also a paradigm used to test a variety of postural control properties, either self-paced or rhythmically driven [30][31][32][33]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there appears to be no information about the concurrent validity of inertial sensing during voluntary body sway, either in silence or while exposed to a rhythmic acoustic stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Validity of Inertially Sensed Measures during Voluntary Body Sway in Silence and while Exposed to a Rhythmic Acoustic Stimulus: A Pilot Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The effect of rhythmic acoustic stimuli on body sway is of increasing interest due to their positive contribution when training or restoring the control of movement. Inertial sensors show promise as a portable, easier, and more affordable method compared to the force plate “gold standard” concerning the evaluation of postural sway. This study examined the concurrent validity of inertially sensed measures of voluntary body sway against those obtained with a force plate, in silence and while exposed to a rhythmic acoustic stimulus. Methods: Temporal (sway duration and variability) and spatial (trajectory length, variability, range, velocity, and area) body sway variables were extracted using an inertial sensor (at L5) in synchronization with a force plate, during anteroposterior body sway in silence and while exposed to a rhythmic acoustic stimulus (n = 18 young women; two 70-s trials in each condition). Statistics included bivariate correlations between the inertially sensed and the force plate measures, separately, in silence and with a rhythmic acoustic stimulus, as well as for the effect of the rhythmic acoustic stimulus (percentage difference from silence) (p ≤ 0.05, SPSS v25.0). Results: The inertially sensed measures demonstrated good-to-excellent concurrent validity for all temporal and almost all spatial variables, both in silence and with rhythmic acoustic stimulus (r > 0.75, p = 0.000), as well as for the rhythmic acoustic-stimulus effect (r > 0.75, p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: The inertially sensed measures of the voluntary anteroposterior body sway demonstrated an overall good-to-excellent concurrent validity against those obtained with the force plate “gold standard,” both in the silence and the rhythmic acoustic stimulus conditions, as well as for the rhythmic acoustic-stimulus effect. The findings of this pilot study allow the recommendation of inertial sensing for the evaluation of postural control alterations when exposed to rhythmic acoustic stimuli, a condition of increasing interest due to the positive contribution of such stimuli when training or restoring the control of movement.

show abstract

Responses to Achilles tendon vibration during self-paced, visually and auditory-guided periodic sway

Cited by 12 publications

References 29 publications

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

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

Learning effects of dynamic postural control by auditory biofeedback versus visual biofeedback training

Concurrent Validity of Inertially Sensed Measures during Voluntary Body Sway in Silence and while Exposed to a Rhythmic Acoustic Stimulus: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About