Effectiveness of Two Forms of Feedback on Training of a Joint Mobilization Skill by Using a Joint Translation Simulator

Background and Purpose Joint mobilization is a complicated task to learn and to teach and is characterized by great intersubject variability. This study's purpose was to investigate whether quantitatively augmented feedback could enhance the learning of joint mobilization and, more specifically, to compare the effects of training with concurrent or terminal feedback by using a joint translation simulator (JTS). Subjects Thirty-six undergraduate physical therapist students were randomly assigned to control (no feedback), concurrent feedback, and terminal feedback groups. Methods The JTS was designed to simulate tissue resistance based on load-displacement relationships of glenohumeral joint specimens. Subjects applied specific mobilization grades of force on the JTS while quantitative feedback was given to the feedback groups either during a trial (ie, concurrent feedback) or after a trial (ie, terminal feedback). The skill acquisition phase lasted a total of 40 minutes, and a total of 75 repetitions were performed for each grade of each joint model. Pretest and no-feedback retention tests were conducted. Results During acquisition and retention, both feedback groups performed more accurately than did the control group. No obviously superior performance was shown by the terminal feedback group compared with concurrent feedback group during retention testing. Discussion and Conclusion Subjects who trained with augmented feedback had less variability, and thus more consistency, than the control group subjects who received no feedback. Augmented feedback provides the student with a reference force and the status of his or her performance. The effectiveness of the JTS feedback compared with no feedback was clearly demonstrated. Skill acquisition in mobilization can be enhanced by either concurrent or terminal feedback.

[1]  K M Newell,et al.  Stabilometer trial length as a function of performance. , 1974, Research quarterly.

[2]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Age-related differences and the role of augmented visual feedback in learning a bimanual coordination pattern. , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[3]  S Kumar,et al.  Use of a spinal model to quantify the forces and motion that occur during therapists' tests of spinal motion. , 1995, Physical therapy.

[4]  V. Olson,et al.  Evaluation of Joint Mobilization Treatment , 1987 .

[5]  C. J. Winstein,et al.  Effects of unilateral brain damage on the control of goal-directed hand movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Jia-Hao Chang,et al.  Characterization of tissue resistance during a dorsally directed translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  D. Hertling,et al.  Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders: Physical Therapy Principles and Methods , 1990 .

[9]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Effects of Aging and Reduced Relative Frequency of Knowledge of Results on Learning a Motor Skill , 1997, Perceptual and motor skills.

[10]  Henk van Dijk,et al.  Effects of age and timing of augmented feedback on learning muscle relaxation while performing a gross motor task. , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[11]  K. Refshauge,et al.  Effect of feedback on learning a vertebral joint mobilization skill. , 1990, Physical therapy.

[12]  R Kevin Pringle,et al.  Guidance hypothesis with verbal feedback in learning a palpation skill. , 2004, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[13]  M. Harms,et al.  Variability of forces applied by experienced therapists during spinal mobilization. , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  J. Annett,et al.  Acquisition of skill. , 1971, British medical bulletin.

[15]  T G Reeve,et al.  Effect of Concurrent Visual Feedback on Acquisition of a Weightlifting Skill , 1988, Perceptual and motor skills.

[16]  E A BILODEAU,et al.  Some effects of introducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  K. Newell,et al.  The informational role of knowledge of results in motor learning. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[18]  A McConnell,et al.  Effect of knowledge of results on attitude formed toward a motor learning task. , 1976, Research quarterly.

[19]  C. Winstein,et al.  Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. , 1994, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[20]  Charles H. Shea,et al.  Reduced-Frequency Concurrent and Terminal Feedback: A Test of the Guidance Hypothesis , 2000, Journal of motor behavior.

[21]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Effect of augmented visual feedback from a virtual reality simulation system on manual dexterity training. , 2005, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[22]  R. Magill.  Motor learning and control : concepts and applications , 2004 .

[23]  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.

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

[25]  V L Olson.  Evaluation of joint mobilization treatment. A method. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[26]  C. Winstein,et al.  Learning a partial-weight-bearing skill: effectiveness of two forms of feedback. , 1996, Physical Therapy.

[27]  K. McQuade,et al.  Patterns of stiffness during clinical examination of the glenohumeral joint. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

[28]  D. V. Vander Linden,et al.  The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[29]  C. Winstein.  Knowledge of results and motor learning--implications for physical therapy. , 1991, Physical therapy.

[30]  C. Davis,et al.  Joint mobilization education and clinical use in the United States. , 1988, Physical therapy.

[31]  Henk van Dijk,et al.  Effects of Age and Timing of Augmented Feedback on Learning Muscle Relaxation While Performing a Gross Motor Task , 2006, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[32]  T. Matyas,et al.  The effect of training on physical therapists' ability to apply specified forces of palpation. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[33]  Martin S Rice,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative knowledge of results: effects on motor learning. , 2003, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[34]  D. Yates,et al.  Peripheral Manipulation , 1978 .

[35]  R M Kohl,et al.  Knowledge of Results for Motor Learning: Relationship Between Error Estimation and Knowledge of Results Frequency , 2001, Journal of motor behavior.

[36]  K. Hayes,et al.  The effect of joint mobilization as a component of comprehensive treatment for primary shoulder impingement syndrome. , 1998, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[37]  E. Hebert,et al.  Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback on tennis skill acquisition. , 1994, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[38]  Dore Naunton,et al.  Peripheral Manipulation (3rd ed.) , 1993 .

[39]  Freddy M. Kaltenborn,et al.  Manual mobilization of the extremity joints : basic examination and treatment techniques , 1989 .

[40]  Howard N. Zelaznik,et al.  Advances in Motor Learning and Control , 1996 .