Robot assistance of motor learning: A neuro-cognitive perspective

Heuer, Herbert; Lüttgen, Jenna

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.07.005

Cited by 36 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 182 publications

(134 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Training with haptic guidance also benefited learning to play a pinball-like game, which is a highly time-critical task (Milot et al, 2010). These results suggest that haptic demonstration of optimal timing, rather than movement magnitude, may have facilitated skill transfer (Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015). Nevertheless, in a recent experiment we found that the most effective robotic training condition depended on the degree of rhythmicity of the task: haptic guidance hampered learning of continuous rhythmic tasks, but promoted learning of discrete movements (Marchal-Crespo et al, 2015a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Research in motor learning has suggested that error amplification might benefit learning of only specific characteristics of the training tasks, such as spatial features of trajectories (Casellato et al, 2012;Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015), while there is emerging evidence that haptic guidance may be specifically useful for learning reproduce the temporal, but not spatial, characteristics of trajectories (Feygin et al, 2002;Marchal-Crespo et al, 2010a,b). Thus, we hypothesized that providing haptic guidance to learn the time components-i.e., reducing errors tangential to the desired trajectory-and error augmentation to learn the spatial components-i.e., augmenting perpendicular errors-would result in better learning of timing and spatial characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These contradictory results suggest that error amplification might limit learning if it decreases motivation during training due to systematically performing large errors. Alternatively, researchers have proposed that error amplification might benefit learning of only some specific characteristics of the training tasks, such as spatial features of trajectories (Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Experimental Evaluation of a Mixed Controller That Amplifies Spatial Errors and Reduces Timing Errors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on motor learning suggests that training with haptic guidance enhances learning of the timing components of motor tasks, whereas error amplification is better for learning the spatial components. We present a novel mixed guidance controller that combines haptic guidance and error amplification to simultaneously promote learning of the timing and spatial components of complex motor tasks. The controller is realized using a force field around the desired position. This force field has a stable manifold tangential to the trajectory that guides subjects in velocity-related aspects. The force field has an unstable manifold perpendicular to the trajectory, which amplifies the perpendicular (spatial) error. We also designed a controller that applies randomly varying, unpredictable disturbing forces to enhance the subjects' active participation by pushing them away from their "comfort zone." We conducted an experiment with thirty-two healthy subjects to evaluate the impact of four different training strategies on motor skill learning and selfreported motivation: (i) No haptics, (ii) mixed guidance, (iii) perpendicular error amplification and tangential haptic guidance provided in sequential order, and (iv) randomly varying disturbing forces. Subjects trained two motor tasks using ARMin IV, a robotic exoskeleton for upper limb rehabilitation: follow circles with an ellipsoidal speed profile, and move along a 3D line following a complex speed profile. Mixed guidance showed no detectable learning advantages over the other groups. Results suggest that the effectiveness of the training strategies depends on the subjects' initial skill level. Mixed guidance seemed to benefit subjects who performed the circle task with smaller errors during baseline (i.e., initially more skilled subjects), while training with no haptics was more beneficial for subjects who created larger errors (i.e., less skilled subjects). Therefore, perhaps the high functional difficulty of the tasks limited the potential benefit of mixed guidance. Adding random disturbing forces during training reduced the learning effect size compared to no haptics. The unanticipated forces also decreased the subjects' feelings of competence while did not increase their effort and interest. Further studies with mildly affected neurologically patients employing easier tasks need to be performed in order to evaluate the applicability of our approaches in rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental Evaluation of a Mixed Controller That Amplifies Spatial Errors and Reduces Timing Errors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One primary reason for the inconclusive results regarding the benefits of haptic training is that researchers have not clearly differentiated or discussed the features of the various motor tasks or training programs that might impact their results (Powell and O’Malley, 2012; Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015). In addition to the basic difference between error minimizing and error augmenting types of haptic feedback, we have previously identified a subtle but important difference between implementations of haptic assistance, namely assistance as demonstration versus assistance as performance feedback (Williams and Carnahan, 2014), which likely invoke different mechanisms of motor learning (Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the basic difference between error minimizing and error augmenting types of haptic feedback, we have previously identified a subtle but important difference between implementations of haptic assistance, namely assistance as demonstration versus assistance as performance feedback (Williams and Carnahan, 2014), which likely invoke different mechanisms of motor learning (Heuer and Lüttgen, 2015). Researchers in (non-robotic) motor learning have long recognized the importance of these relationships among type of tasks, feedback parameters/practice conditions and motor learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It Pays to Go Off-Track: Practicing with Error-Augmenting Haptic Feedback Facilitates Learning of a Curve-Tracing Task

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers in the domain of haptic training are now entering the long-standing debate regarding whether or not it is best to learn a skill by experiencing errors. Haptic training paradigms provide fertile ground for exploring how various theories about feedback, errors and physical guidance intersect during motor learning. Our objective was to determine how error minimizing, error augmenting and no haptic feedback while learning a self-paced curve-tracing task impact performance on delayed (1 day) retention and transfer tests, which indicate learning. We assessed performance using movement time and tracing error to calculate a measure of overall performance – the speed accuracy cost function. Our results showed that despite exhibiting the worst performance during skill acquisition, the error augmentation group had significantly better accuracy (but not overall performance) than the error minimization group on delayed retention and transfer tests. The control group’s performance fell between that of the two experimental groups but was not significantly different from either on the delayed retention test. We propose that the nature of the task (requiring online feedback to guide performance) coupled with the error augmentation group’s frequent off-target experience and rich experience of error-correction promoted information processing related to error-detection and error-correction that are essential for motor learning.

show abstract

Gender comparative research on learning strategies applying the cognitive‐motor model methodology and VISIR remote lab

Blazquez‐Merino

García-Loro

Plaza‐Merino

et al. 2019

Comp Applic In Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research work hereby presented shows some findings about the different ways used by girls and boys, at secondary school, to assimilate the electricity concepts and electric magnitudes to be able to design and assemble electric circuits. The methodology applied to learning, the cognitive‐motor model (CMM), is also presented, and it is based on the mutual interaction of cognitive skills and motor capabilities. Students have followed a specific course designed under CMM specifications. The course contains a combination of theoretical activities and practical tasks by means of which cognitive and motor skills have been measured. To carry out the practical tasks, the Virtual Instrument Systems in a reality remote lab have been used by students as the technical resource. In the study, different learning strategies between male and female students, what affects each gender effectiveness, and learning performance have been found.

show abstract

Robot assistance of motor learning: A neuro-cognitive perspective

Cited by 36 publications

References 182 publications

Experimental Evaluation of a Mixed Controller That Amplifies Spatial Errors and Reduces Timing Errors

Experimental Evaluation of a Mixed Controller That Amplifies Spatial Errors and Reduces Timing Errors

It Pays to Go Off-Track: Practicing with Error-Augmenting Haptic Feedback Facilitates Learning of a Curve-Tracing Task

Gender comparative research on learning strategies applying the cognitive‐motor model methodology and VISIR remote lab

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About