Effect of progressive visual error amplification on human motor adaptation

Amplification of error has been shown to be an effective technique in increasing the rate and extent of learning for motor tasks and has the potential to accelerate rehabilitation following motor impairment. However, current error amplification methods suffer from reduced effectiveness towards the end of training. In this paper, we propose a new approach, progressive error amplification, in which error gains increase as a trainee's performance improves. We tested this approach against conventional error augmentation in a controlled experiment wherein 30 subjects adapted to a visually distorted environment by performing target-hitting tasks under one of three conditions (control, constant error amplification, progressive error amplification). Our results showed that compared with repeated practice, error amplification does not accelerate learning or result in improved task performance with respect to trajectory error, although progressive error amplification does produce lower trajectory errors when training conditions are in effect. These results indicate a need for further tuning of error augmentation methods in order to determine their true potential as a training method.

[1]  J Patrick,et al.  The Relationship between Types of Feedback, Gain of a Display and Feedback Precision in Acquisition of a Simple Motor Task , 1982, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[2]  Marcia K. O'Malley,et al.  Impact of visual error augmentation methods on task performance and motor adaptation , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[3]  David J. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Comparison of error-amplification and haptic-guidance training techniques for learning of a timing-based motor task by healthy individuals , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Ian Sharp,et al.  Visual error augmentation enhances learning in three dimensions , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[5]  N. Hogan,et al.  A working model of stroke recovery from rehabilitation robotics practitioners , 2009, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[6]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[7]  N. Hogan,et al.  Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  Gabriele Wulf,et al.  Continuous Concurrent Feedback Degrades Skill Learning: Implications for Training and Simulation , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  Perceptual limits for a robotic rehabilitation environment using visual feedback distortion , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[10]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[11]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Enhanced visual error in a coordinated pinch task , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[12]  R C Miall,et al.  System Identification Applied to a Visuomotor Task: Near-Optimal Human Performance in a Noisy Changing Task , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[14]  Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Interaction of visual and proprioceptive feedback during adaptation of human reaching movements. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[17]  Ian Sharp,et al.  Visual error augmentation enhances learning in three dimensions , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[18]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Adaptation to gradual as compared with sudden visuo-motor distortions , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  J. Patton,et al.  Visual error augmentation for enhancing motor learning and rehabilitative relearning , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[20]  N. Hogan,et al.  Comparison of Two Techniques of Robot-Aided Upper Limb Exercise Training After Stroke , 2004, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.