Background: Improvment of upper limb motor skills occurs through motor learning that can be enhanced by providing extrinsic feedback. Different types and frequencies of feedback are discussed but specific guidelines for use of feedback for motor learning in typically-developing (TD) children and children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) are not available.
Objective: Identify the most effective modalities and frequencies of feedback for improving upper limb motor skills in TD children and children with CP.
Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, PEDro and PubMed-NCBI were searched from 1950 to December 2015 to identify English-language articles addressing the role of extrinsic feedback on upper limb motor learning in TD children and children with CP. Nine studies were selected with a total of 243 TD children and 102 children with CP. Study quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black scale and levels of evidence were determined with Sackett’s quality ratings.
Results: There was a lack of consistency in the modalities and frequencies of feedback delivery used to improve motor learning in TD children and in children with CP. Moreover, the complexity of the task to be learned influenced the degree of motor learning achieved.
Conclusion: A better understanding of the influence of feedback on motor learning is needed to optimize motor skill acquisition in children with CP.
AbadiA.N.F., BoshehriS.N.S., MehdipourA., & ZamaniM.H. (2014). Effects of feedback with different frequency on throwing skill learning in preschool children. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 3, 75–82.
2.
BaxM., GoldsteinM., RosenbaumP., LevitonA., PanethN., DanB., &...DamianoD. (2005). Proposed definition and classification of cerebral palsy, April 2005. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47(8), 571–576.
3.
BernsteinN.A. (1967). The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, NY.
4.
BurtnerP.A., LeinwandR., SullivanK.J., GohH.T., & KantakS.S. (2014). Motor learning in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: Feedback effects on skill acquisition. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 56(3), 259–266.
5.
DownsS.H., & BlackN. (1998). The feasibility of creating a check- list for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52(6), 377–384.
6.
FoleyN.C., BhogalS.K., TeasellR.W., BureauY., & SpeechleyM.R. (2006). Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Physical Therapy, 86(6), 817–824.
7.
GohH.T., KantakS.S., & SullivanK.J. (2012). Movement pattern and parameter learning in children: Effects of feedback frequency. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 346–352.
8.
GottliebG.L., CorcosD.M., JaricS., & AgarwalG.C. (1988). Practice improves even the simplest movements. Experimental Brain Research, 73(2), 436–440.
9.
HallettM. (2005). Neuroplasticity and rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 42(4), 17–21.
10.
HemayattalabR., & RostamiL.R. (2010). Effects of frequency of feedback on the learning of motor skill in individuals with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), 212–217.
11.
JonesM.W., MorganE., SheltonJ.E., & ThorogoodC. (2007). Cerebral palsy: Introduction and diagnosis (part I). Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 21(3), 146–152.
12.
KleimJ.A., & JonesT.A. (2008). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 51(1), 225–239.
13.
LatashM.L. (2012). The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not redundancy. Experimental Brain Research, 217(1), 1–5.
14.
LauferY., & WeissP.L. (2011). Virtual reality in the assessment and treatment of children with motor impairment: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 25(1), 59–71.
15.
LevinM.F., KleimJ.A., & WolfS.L. (2009). What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke?Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23(4), 313–319.
16.
MagillR. (2011). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications, McGraw-Hill Education, New York City. NY.
17.
Marchal-CrespoL., van RaaiM., RauterG., WolfP., & RienerR. (2013). The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task. Experimental Brain Research, 231(3), 277–291.
18.
MarschallF., BundA., & WiemeyerJ. (2007). Does frequent feedback really degrade learning? A meta analysis. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1(1), 75–86.
19.
MeichenbaumD. (1986). Cognitive behor modification. In:
KanferF. H. & GoldsteinA. P.Helping people change: A textbook of methods (pp. 346–381). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
20.
MolierB.I., Van AsseldonkE.H., HermensH.J., & JanninkM.J. (2010). Nature, timing, frequency and type of augmented feedback; does it influence motor relearning of the hemiparetic arm after stroke? A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(22), 1799–1809.
21.
MooreJ.K. (2002). Maturation of human auditory cortex: Implications for speech perception. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 189, 7–10.
22.
MoseleyA.M., HerbertR.D., SherringtonC., & MaherC.G. (2002). Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 48, 43–49.
23.
de OliveiraD.L., CorrêaU.C., GimenezR., BassoL., & TaniG. (2009). Relative frequency of knowledge of results and task complexity in the motor skill acquisition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109(3), 831–840.
24.
PanethN., HongT., & KorzeniewskiS. (2006). The descriptive epidemiology of cerebral palsy. Clinics in Perinatology, 33(2), 251–267.
25.
SackettD.L., StrausS.E., RichardsonW.S., RosenbergW., & HaynesR.B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM, Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone Inc.
26.
SchmidtR.A., & LeeT.D. (2011). Motor learning concepts and research methods. In:
SchmidtR.A. & LeeT. D. (Eds.), Motor Control and Learning: A Behoral Emphasis (pp. 327–346). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
27.
SidawayB., BatesJ., OcchiogrossoB., SchlagenhauferJ., & WilkesD. (2012). Interaction of feedback frequency and task difficulty in children’s motor skill learning. Physical Therapy, 92(7), 948–957.
28.
SigristR., RauterG., RienerR., & WolfP. (2013). Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(1), 21–53.
29.
StiersP., VannesteG., CoeneS., & VandenbusscheE. (2002). Visual-perceptual impairment in a random sample of children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 44(6), 370–382.
30.
SubramanianS.K., MassieC.L., MalcolmM.P., & LevinM.F. (2010). Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? A systematic review of the evidence. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(2), 113–124.
31.
SullivanK.J., KantakS.S., & BurtnerP.A. (2008). Motor learning in children: Feedback effects on skill acquisition. Physical Therapy, 88(6), 720–732.
32.
TalbotM.L., & JunkalaJ. (1981). The effects of auditorally augmented feedback on the eye-hand coordination of students with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 35(8), 525–528.
33.
WeeksD.L., & KordusR.N. (1998). Relative frequency of knowledge of performance and motor skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 224–230.
34.
WeissP., KizonyR., FeintuchU., & KatzN. (2006). Virtual reality in neurorehabilitation. In
SelzerM.,
CohenL.,
GageF.,
ClarkeS. & DuncanP. (Eds.), Textbook of neural repair and rehabilitation (pp. 182–197). Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.
35.
WinsteinC.J., & SchmidtR.A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 677–691.
36.
WittenI.B., & KnudsenE.I. (2005). Why seeing is believing: Merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron, 48(3), 489–496.
37.
WulfG., ChiviacowskyS., SchillerE., & AvilaL.T. (2010). Frequent external-focus feedback enhances motor learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1), 190.
38.
WulfG., & SheaC.H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(2), 185–211.
