There is equivocal evidence regarding the effectiveness of robotic guidance on the (re)learning of voluntary motor skills. Robotic guidance can improve the performance of continuous/ tracking skills, although being seldom more effective than unassisted practice alone. However, most of the previous studies employed robotic guidance on all intervention trials. Recently, we showed that mixing robotic guidance with unassisted practice (i.e., mixed practice) can significantly improve the learning of a golf putting task. Yet, these mixed practice studies involved self-paced movements in a standing posture, thus less applicable to rehabilitation contexts.
OBJECTIVE:
The current study aimed to investigate the influence of mixed practice on the timing accuracy of an upper-limb, rhythmic, sequential task. The goal was to assess the feasibility of integrating mixed practice with music-based interventions.
METHODS:
Two groups of participants performed circle-drawing sequences in synchrony with rhythmic auditory signals. They completed a pre-test and an acquisition phase, followed by immediate retention and transfer tests. One group received robotic guidance on 50% of the acquisition trials (i.e., mixed practice), whereas another group always practiced unassisted. The pre-test, retention, and transfer tests were performed unassisted.
RESULTS:
Both groups significantly improved their timing accuracy and precision between the pre-test and the retention test.
CONCLUSION:
This study provides further evidence that mixed practice can facilitate the (re)learning of voluntary actions, especially with the type of externally paced upper-limb movements employed in music-based interventions.
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of motor behavior3(2), 111–150.
2.
Altenmüller, E., Trappe, W. & Jabusch, H. C. (2020). Expertise-related differences in cyclic motion patterns in drummers: A kinematic analysis. Frontiers in Psychology11, 538958.
3.
Amaro, J., Magalhães, J., Leite, M., Aguiar, B., Ponte, P., Barrocas, J. & Norton, P. (2018). Musculoskeletal injuries and absenteeism among healthcare professionals—ICD-10 characterization. . PloS One13(12), e0207837.
4.
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)57(1), 289–300.
5.
Bested, S. R., de >Grosbois, J., Crainic, V. A. & Tremblay, L. (2019). The influence of robotic guidance on error detection and correction mechanisms. Human Movement Science66, 124–132.
6.
Bested, S. R., Manson, G. A. & Tremblay, L. (2019). Combining unassisted and robot-guided practice benefits motor learning for a golf putting task. Journal of Motor Learning and Development7(3), 408–425.
7.
Chua, R. & Elliott, D. (1993). Visual regulation of manual aiming. Human Movement Science12(4), 365–401.
8.
Clariana, R. B., Wagner, D. & Roher Murphy, L. C. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development48(3), 5–22.
9.
Colonius, H. & Diederich, A. (2004). Multisensory interaction in saccadic reaction time: a time-window-of-integration model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience16(6), 1000–1009.
10.
Crespo, L. M., & Reinkensmeyer, D. J. (2008, October). Effect of robotic guidance on motor learning of a timing task. In 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 199–204.
11.
DeWeese, M. R., Wehr, M. & Zador, A. M. (2003). Binary spiking in auditory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience23(21), 7940–7949.
12.
Do Tran, V., Dario, P. & Mazzoleni, S. (2018). Kinematic measures for upper limb robot-assisted therapy following stroke and correlations with clinical outcome measures: A review. Medical Engineering & Physics53, 13–31.
13.
Eldridge, S. M., Lancaster, G. A., Campbell, M. J., Thabane, L., Hopewell, S., Coleman, C. L. & Bond, C. M. (2016). Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PloS One11(3), e0150205.
14.
Elliott, D., Hansen, S., Grierson, L. E., Lyons, J., Bennett, S. J. & Hayes, S. J. (2010). Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychological Bulletin136(6), 1023.
15.
Feygin, D., Keehner, M. & Tendick, R. (2002). Haptic guidance: Experimental evaluation of a haptic training method for a perceptual motor skill. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, (pp. 40–47), Orlando, FL, USA.
16.
Haire, C. M., Vuong, V., Tremblay, L., Patterson, K., Chen, J. L. & Thaut, M. H. (2021). Effects of therapeutic instrumental music performance and motor imagery on chronic post-stroke cognition and affect: A randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation, 1–14.
17.
Heuer, H. & Rapp, K. (2011). Active error corrections enhance adaptation to a visuo-motor rotation. Experimental Brain Research211(1), 97–108.
18.
Heuer, H. & Luettgen, J. (2015). Robot assistance of motor learning: A neuro-cognitive perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews56, 222–240.
19.
Hodges, N.J. & Campagnaro, P. (2012). tice. Chapter: Physical Guidance Research. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Prac (p. 150). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
Latash, M. L. (2012). The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not redundancy). Experimental Brain Research, 217(1), 1–5.
21.
Lee, J. & Choi, S. (2010). Effects of haptic guidance and disturbance on motor learning: Potential advantage of haptic disturbance. In Haptics Symposium, 2010 IEEE. (pp. 335–342). IEEE.
22.
Lee, T. D. & Carnahan, H. (1990). Bandwidth knowledge of results and motor learning: More than just a relative frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology42(4), 777–789.
23.
Liu, J., Cramer, S. C. & Reinkensmeyer, D. J. (2006). Learning to perform a new movement with robotic assistance: comparison of haptic guidance and visual demonstration. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation3(1), 1–10.
24.
Loria, T., Tan, M., de Grosbois, J., Huang, A. & Thaut, M. H. (2022). Temporospatial Alterations in Upper-Limb and Mallet Control Underlie Motor Learning in Marimba Performance. Frontiers in Psychology13.
25.
Luettgen, J. & Heuer, H. (2013). The influence of robotic guidance on different types of motor timing. Journal of Motor Behavior45(3), 249–258.
26.
Lui, S. K. & Nguyen, M. H. (2018). Elderly Stroke Rehabilitation: Overcoming the Complications and Its Associated Challenges. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research2018, 9853837–9853839.
27.
Manson, G. A., Alekhina, M., Srubiski, S. L., Williams, C. K., Bhattacharjee, A. & Tremblay, L. (2014). Effects of robotic guidance on sensorimotor control: planning vs. online control?NeuroRehabilitation35(4), 689–700.
28.
Marchal-Crespo, L., McHughen, S., Cramer, S. C. & Reinkensmeyer, D. J. (2010). The effect of haptic guidance, aging, and initial skill level on motor learning of a steering task. Experimental Brain Research201(2), 209–220.
29.
Medical Research Council (Great Britain). Health Services and Public Health Research Board. (2000) A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. Medical Research Council.
30.
Moore, B. C. (2012) An introduction to the psychology of hearing, Brill.
31.
Palluel-Germain, R., Bara, F., De Boisferon, A. H., Hennion, B., Gouagout, P., & Gentaz, E. (2007, March). A visuo-haptic device – telemaque - increases kindergarten children’s handwriting acquisition. In World Haptics Conference, (pp. 72–77), Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
32.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A. & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin95(3), 355.
33.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review82(4), 225.
34.
Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S. & Shapiro, D. C. (1989). Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition15(2), 352.
35.
Seaman, M. A., Levin, J. R. & Serlin, R. C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: some powerful and practicable procedures. Psychological Bulletin110(3), 577.
36.
Shea, C. H. & Kohl, R. M. (1990). Specificity and variability of practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport61(2), 169–177.
37.
Shea, J. B. & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory5(2), 179.
38.
Yoo, J. (2009). The role of therapeutic instrumental music performance in hemiparetic arm rehabilitation. Music Therapy Perspectives27(1), 16–24.
