CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Motor Control and AdaptationVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsSports and Physical Education Research

The Short-Term Effects of Real-Time Virtual Reality Feedback on Motor Learning in Dance

Open access
Eaves, Daniel L., Breslin, Gavin, van Schaik, Paul·2011·Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments
DOI 10.1162/pres_a_00035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Does virtual reality (VR) represent a useful platform for teaching real-world motor skills? In domains such as sport and dance, this question has not yet been fully explored. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of two variations of real-time VR feedback on the learning of a complex dance movement. Novice participants (n = 30) attempted to learn the action by both observing a video of an expert's movement demonstration and physically practicing under one of three conditions. These conditions were: full feedback (FULL-FB), which presented learners with real-time VR feedback on the difference between 12 of their joint center locations and the expert's movement during learning; reduced feedback (REDUCED-FB), which provided feedback on only four distal joint center locations (end-effectors); and no feedback (NO-FB), which presented no real-time VR feedback during learning. Participants' kinematic data were gathered before, immediately after, and 24 hr after a motor learning session. Movement error was calculated as the difference in the range of movement at specific joints between each learner's movement and the expert's demonstrated movement. Principal component analysis was also used to examine dimensional change across time. The results showed that the REDUCED-FB condition provided an advantage in motor learning over the other conditions: it achieved a significantly greater reduction in error across five separate error measures. These findings indicate that VR can be used to provide a useful platform for teaching real-world motor skills, and that this may be achieved by its ability to direct the learner's attention to the key anatomical features of a to-be-learned action.

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 · 10.1162/pres_a_00035

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Point lights can provide effective feedback, as shown for dancing, because humans can recognize complex biological motion from a few point lights.

    “Since humans can recognize complex biological motions by observing only a few point lights placed on a moving body (Giese & Poggio, 2003), point lights can also provide effective feedback, as has been shown for dancing (Eaves et al., 2011).”

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

  • Feedback about end-effector positions alone was more effective than feedback about 12 joint centers or video instruction alone.

    “Interestingly, giving feedback about end-effector positions only was more effective than feedback about 12 joint centers (or video instruction only) (Eaves et al., 2011).”

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

  • Too many superimposed parts may overwhelm the learner with excessive information, preventing focus on the most relevant parts.

    “Too many superimposed parts may overwhelm the learner with too much information; as a consequence, he/she cannot focus on the most relevant ones (Eaves et al., 2011).”

    From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Eaves 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: 4

  1. [11]11. Drobny, D., Weiss, M., & Borchers, J. (2009). Saltate! A sen- sor-based system to support dance beginners. In CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3943-3948.
  2. [12]12. Eaves, D. L., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2008). Ener- getic costs of incidental visual coupling during treadmill run- ning. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 40(8), 1506-1514.
  3. [24]24. Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis: Springer se- ries in statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
  4. [45]45. Yang, Z., Yu, B., Diankov, R., Wu, W., & Bajscy, R. (2006). Collaborative dancing in a teleimmersive environment. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia, 723-726.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eaves, D. L., Breslin, G., & van Schaik, P.
Affiliations
  • Teesside University (GB)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • School of Social Sciences and Law Teesside University Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK
Corresponding author
Eaves, Daniel L.
ORCID
Venue
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2011-02-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
62-77
ISSN
1054-7460 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1162/pres_a_00035
OpenAlex
W2112959581
Cited by
60
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • PRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality (publishedVersion)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Teesside University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
motor learning, dance, real-time feedback, limited feedback, motion error, kinematics, end effector, novice learners

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