Cited by 193Motor Control and AdaptationSport Psychology and PerformanceTactile and Sensory Interactions

Motor Learning with Augmented Feedback: Modality-Dependent Behavioral and Neural Consequences

Open access
Ronsse, Renaud, Puttemans, Veerle, Coxon, James P., Goble, Daniel J., Wagemans, Johan, Wenderoth, Nicole, Swinnen, Stephan P.·2011·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Sensory information is critical to correct performance errors online during the execution of complex tasks and can be complemented by augmented feedback (FB). Here, 2 groups of participants acquired a new bimanual coordination pattern under different augmented FB conditions: 1) visual input reflecting coordination between the 2 hands and 2) auditory pacing integrating the timing of both hands into a single temporal structure. Behavioral findings revealed that the visual group became dependent on this augmented FB for performance, whereas the auditory group performed equally well with or without augmented FB by the end of practice. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) results corroborated these behavioral findings: the visual group showed neural activity increases in sensory-specific areas during practice, supporting increased reliance on augmented FB. Conversely, the auditory group showed a neural activity decrease, specifically in areas associated with cognitive/sensory monitoring of motor task performance, supporting the development of a control mode that was less reliant on augmented FB sources. Finally, some remnants of brain activity in sensory-specific areas in the absence of augmented FB were found for the visual group only, illustrating ongoing reliance on these areas. These findings provide the first neural account for the "guidance hypothesis of information FB," extensively supported by behavioral research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhq209

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In an interlimb out-of-phase coordination task, a visual group using Lissajous figures did not benefit in learning.

    “A visual group was asked to learn an interlimb out-of-phase coordination task with Lissajous figures and could not benefit in terms of learning.”

    From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Ronsse, Puttemans, et al., 2011

    The Task Description and Procedure confirms that the visual group practiced a 90° out-of-phase task using a Lissajous figure. But the Discussion says they acquired the pattern successfully; their performance deteriorated when visual feedback was removed. The claim overstates that limitation as no benefit from learning. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In that task, an auditory group that heard tones representing wrist turning points learned correct coordination and retained it in a retention test.

    “The auditory group did learn; thus, they showed correct coordination even in a retention test.”

    From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Ronsse, Puttemans, et al., 2011

  • The auditory group may have kept the target rhythm in mind and moved their wrist accordingly even without auditory feedback in retention tests.

    “It might be that the auditory group could keep in mind the target rhythm and move their wrist accordingly, even without auditory feedback in retention tests (Ronsse, Puttemans, et al., 2011).”

    From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Ronsse, Puttemans, et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Kelso JAS. 1995. Dynamic patterns. The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
  2. Magill RA. 2007. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  3. O'Reilly JX, Beckmann CF, Tomassini V, Ramnani N, Johansen-Berg H. 2010. Distinct and overlapping functional zones in the cerebellum defined by resting state functional connectivity. Cereb Cortex. 20:953--965.
  4. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. 1984. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull. 95:355--386.
  5. Swinnen SP. 1996. Advances in motor learning and control, chapter information feedback for motor skill learning: a review. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics. p. 37--66.
  6. Talairach J, Tournoux P. 1988. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. Stuttgart (Germany): Georg Thieme Verlag.
  7. Zeki S. 1991. Cerebral akinetopsia (visual motion blindness). a review. Brain. 114(Pt 2):811--824.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ronsse, R., Puttemans, V., Coxon, J. P., Goble, D. J., Wagemans, J., Wenderoth, N., & Swinnen, S. P.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2010-10-28
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
1283-1294
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2117916152
Cited by
193
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Vlaamse regering (METH 08/02)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
augmented feedback, motor learning, bimanual coordination, auditory feedback, visual feedback, feedback modality, motor control, performance monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Biofeedback, Psychology, Biomechanical Phenomena, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Hand, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motor Activity, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Young Adult

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