【論文摘要】The Effects of Progressive Error Amplification on Visuomotor Tracking Task in Healthy Young Adults

【論文摘要】漸進式錯誤放大對於年輕人視覺動作追蹤任務的效應

徐其文(Chi-Wen Hsu) ； 黃英修(Ing-Shiou Hwang) ； 胡家綾(Chia-Ling Hu)

《物理治療》 46卷2期 (2021/06) Pp. 131-131

https://doi.org/10.6215/FJPT.202106.P20

摘要

Background and Purpose: Error amplification (EA) is a novel neuro-cognitive strategy to train visuomotor skills by virtually amplification of execution errors via visual feedback. In the late stage of motor learning, the subjects might profit less from error feedback, because fewer amount of errors can be feedbacked due to task improvements. Hence, progressive EA (P-EA) with a specific focus on multiplication of execution errors in the late learning stage is potentially to prevail over the feedback limit. This study aimed to examine whether P-EA can produce additional learning benefits than traditional EA with constant EA(C-EA). Methods: Eighteen healthy young adults (24.9 ± 2.5 years old) were randomly assigned into P-EA group (n = 9) and C-EA group (n = 9) to train visuomotor tracking. The training session consisted of 15 trials of a simple sinusoidal target at 0.2 Hz with baseline force of 20% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and amplitude between plus-minus 10% MVC (20 ± 10% MVC), interleaved with a 2-minute rest. The EA of P-EA during training was progressively increased from 1 to 2 (2 times of real error) across trials, while EA of C-EA was 1.5 (1.5 times of real error). Five trials of visuomotor tracking of a compound sinusoidal target (0.1 Hz and 0.3 Hz) with real error feedback were examined in the pre-test and post-test. In terms of task errors and spectral peaks at target frequencies (0.1 Hz and 0.3 Hz), performance gains ([posttest-pretest]/ pretest × 100%) of the P-EA and C-EA groups were contrasted using independent t statistics. Results: Both P-EA and C-EA groups demonstrated marked reductions in task errors after visuomotor training (pretest in P-EA group: 2.07 ± 0.50 %MVC and in C-EA group: 1.91 ± 0.33 %MVC; post-test in P-EA group: 1.41 ± 0.22 %MVC and in C-EA group: 1.40 ± 0.25 %MVC). However, the performance gains of the root mean square of the task errors (RMS_err) did not differ between the both groups (p = 0.41). The performance gains of peak frequency at 0.1 Hz was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.98). Likewise, the performance gains of peak frequency at 0.3 Hz did not vary with training intervention (p = 0.88). Conclusion: Both visuomotor training with P-EA and C-EA led to task improvement, especially for fast tracking maneuver. However, contrary to expectation, P-EA did not outweigh C-EA from the aspects of temporal accuracy and spectral accuracy. Clinical Relevance: To train a visuomotor skill, P-EA and C-EA are equally effective