Comparison of visual and haptic feedback during training of lower extremities
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A virtual teacher effectively instructed a step-in-place task.
“Accordingly, a virtual teacher has effectively instructed a step-in-place task (Koritnik, Bajd, & Munih, 2008;Koritnik, Koenig, Bajd, Riener, & Munih, 2010)”
From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Koritnik, Koenig, Bajd, Riener, & Munih, 2010
Cites
Virtual Environments for Motor Rehabilitation: Review
Holden, M. K. (2005) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.187 · Cited by 1,154 · see citing works
Integration of Proprioceptive and Visual Position-Information: An Experimentally Supported Model
van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C., & Gon, J. J. D. V. D. (1999) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1999.81.3.1355 · Cited by 742 · see citing works
Haptic guidance: experimental evaluation of a haptic training method for a perceptual motor skill
Feygin, D., Keehner, M., & Tendick, R. (2003) · Proceedings 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. HAPTICS 2002 · doi:10.1109/haptic.2002.998939 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task
Todorov, E., Shadmehr, R., & Bizzi, E. (1997) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222899709600829 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Virtual environment for lower-extremities training
Koritnik, T., Bajd, T., & Munih, M. (2008) · Gait & Posture · doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.04.015 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citationEvaluation of Visual and Auditory Feedback in Virtual Obstacle Walking
Wellner, M., Schaufelberger, A., Zitzewitz, J. V., & Riener, R. (2008) · Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments · doi:10.1162/pres.17.5.512 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review
Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8 · Cited by 1,416 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- green
- zenodo.org
- Licence
- 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