Cited by 107Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsMotor Control and Adaptation

Effect of visual distraction and auditory feedback on patient effort during robot-assisted movement training after stroke

Open access
Secoli, Riccardo, Milot, Marie-Helene, Rosati, Giulio, Reinkensmeyer, David J·2011·Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Practicing arm and gait movements with robotic assistance after neurologic injury can help patients improve their movement ability, but patients sometimes reduce their effort during training in response to the assistance. Reduced effort has been hypothesized to diminish clinical outcomes of robotic training. To better understand patient slacking, we studied the role of visual distraction and auditory feedback in modulating patient effort during a common robot-assisted tracking task. METHODS: Fourteen participants with chronic left hemiparesis from stroke, five control participants with chronic right hemiparesis and fourteen non-impaired healthy control participants, tracked a visual target with their arms while receiving adaptive assistance from a robotic arm exoskeleton. We compared four practice conditions: the baseline tracking task alone; tracking while also performing a visual distracter task; tracking with the visual distracter and sound feedback; and tracking with sound feedback. For the distracter task, symbols were randomly displayed in the corners of the computer screen, and the participants were instructed to click a mouse button when a target symbol appeared. The sound feedback consisted of a repeating beep, with the frequency of repetition made to increase with increasing tracking error. RESULTS: Participants with stroke halved their effort and doubled their tracking error when performing the visual distracter task with their left hemiparetic arm. With sound feedback, however, these participants increased their effort and decreased their tracking error close to their baseline levels, while also performing the distracter task successfully. These effects were significantly smaller for the participants who used their non-paretic arm and for the participants without stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Visual distraction decreased participants effort during a standard robot-assisted movement training task. This effect was greater for the hemiparetic arm, suggesting that the increased demands associated with controlling an affected arm make the motor system more prone to slack when distracted. Providing an alternate sensory channel for feedback, i.e., auditory feedback of tracking error, enabled the participants to simultaneously perform the tracking task and distracter task effectively. Thus, incorporating real-time auditory feedback of performance errors might improve clinical outcomes of robotic therapy systems.

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 · 10.1186/1743-0003-8-21

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 107

Authors
Secoli, R., Milot, M.-H., Rosati, G., & Reinkensmeyer, D. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Secoli, Riccardo
Venue
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published
2011
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
21
ISSN
1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141024349
Cited by
107
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (N01-HD-3–)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD062744, NIHR01HD062744-01F, N01 HD 33352)
  • National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (R01HD062744, NIH-R01HD062744)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
stroke, patient effort, visual distraction, auditory feedback, hemiparesis, tracking error, sensory feedback, motor recovery
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Aged, Arm, Female, Gait, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Paresis, Photic Stimulation, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Robotics, Sex Characteristics, User-Computer Interface, Stroke, Feedback, Psychological

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