Cited by 52Motor Control and AdaptationStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Comparison of visual and haptic feedback during training of lower extremities

Open access
Koritnik, T., Koenig, A., Bajd, T., Riener, R., Munih, M.·2010·Gait & Posture

Abstract

We compared the effects of visual and haptic modalities on the adaptation capabilities of healthy subjects to the virtual environment. The visual cueing (only the reference motion is presented) and visual feedback (the reference motion as well as the current tracking deviation are presented) were provided by a real-time visualization of a virtual teacher and a virtual self - avatar, using optical measurements. The subjects had to track the virtual teacher during stepping-in-place movements. The haptic feedback was provided by the actuated gait orthosis Lokomat programmed with the same stepping movements employing an impedance control algorithm. Both setups included auditory cueing. The stepping task was performed by engaging different modalities separately as well as combined. The results showed that (1) visual feedback alone yielded better tracking of the virtual teacher than visual cueing alone, (2) haptic feedback alone yielded better tracking than any visual modality alone, (3) haptic feedback and visual feedback combined yielded better tracking than haptic feedback alone, and (4) haptic feedback combined with visual cueing did not improve tracking performance compared to haptic feedback alone. In general, we observed a better task performance with the haptic modality compared to visual modality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.07.017

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koritnik, T., Koenig, A., Bajd, T., Riener, R., & Munih, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Ljubljana (SI)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Koritnik, T.
Venue
Gait & Posture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
540-546
ISSN
0966-6362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128835613
Cited by
52
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gait & Posture (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
visual feedback, haptic feedback, virtual reality training, lower limb rehabilitation, Lokomat, impedance control, stepping in place, auditory cueing, motor adaptation, multimodal feedback
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cues, Female, Gait, Humans, Male, Movement, Orthotic Devices, Psychomotor Performance, Rehabilitation, User-Computer Interface, Feedback, Psychological, Lower Extremity, Young Adult, Feedback, Sensory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review