Abstract
Previous research suggests that the effectiveness of robotic training depends on the motor task to be learned. However, it is still an open question which specific task’s characteristics influence the efficacy of error-modulating training strategies. Motor tasks can be classified based on the time characteristics of the task, in particular the task’s duration (discrete vs. continuous). Continuous tasks require movements without distinct beginning or end. Discrete tasks require fast movements that include well-defined postures at the beginning and the end. We developed two games, one that requires a continuous movement—a tracking task—and one that requires discrete movements—a fast reaching task. We conducted an experiment with thirty healthy subjects to evaluate the effectiveness of three error-modulating training strategies—no guidance, error amplification (i.e., repulsive forces proportional to errors) and haptic guidance—on self-reported motivation and learning of the continuous and discrete games. Training with error amplification resulted in better motor learning than haptic guidance, besides the fact that error amplification reduced subjects’ interest/enjoyment and perceived competence during training. Only subjects trained with error amplification improved their performance after training the discrete game. In fact, subjects trained without guidance improved the performance in the continuous game significantly more than in the discrete game, probably because the continuous task required greater attentional levels. Error-amplifying training strategies have a great potential to provoke better motor learning in continuous and discrete tasks. However, their long-lasting negative effects on motivation might limit their applicability in intense neurorehabilitation programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Casellato C, Pedrocchi A, Zorzi G et al (2012) Error-enhancing robot therapy to induce motor control improvement in childhood onset primary dystonia. J NeuroEng Rehabil 9:46. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-9-46
Cohen RG, Sternad D (2009) Variability in motor learning: relocating, channeling and reducing noise. Exp Brain Res 193:69–83. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1596-1
Dietz V, Ward N (eds) (2015) The applicability of motor learning to neurorehabilitation. In: Oxford textbook of neurorehabilitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–64
Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE et al (2007) Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. J Neurophysiol 98:757–768. doi:10.1152/jn.01295.2006
Duarte JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2015) Effects of robotically modulating kinematic variability on motor skill learning and motivation. J Neurophysiol 113:2682–2691. doi:10.1152/jn.00163.2014
Emken JL, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2005) Robot-enhanced motor learning: accelerating internal model formation during locomotion by transient dynamic amplification. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 13:33–39. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2004.843173
Emken JL, Benitez R, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2007) Human-robot cooperative movement training: learning a novel sensory motor transformation during walking with robotic assistance-as-needed. J Neuroeng Rehabil 4:8. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-4-8
Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:1688–1703
Franklin DW, Liaw G, Milner TE et al (2007) Endpoint stiffness of the arm is directionally tuned to instability in the environment. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 27:7705–7716. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0968-07.2007
Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD (2004) Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav 36:212–224. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224
Guidali M, Duschau-Wicke A, Broggi S et al (2011) A robotic system to train activities of daily living in a virtual environment. Med Biol Eng Comput 49:1213–1223. doi:10.1007/s11517-011-0809-0
Heuer H, Lüttgen J (2014) Motor learning with fading and growing haptic guidance. Exp Brain Res 232:2229–2242. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3914-0
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J Biom Z 50:346–363. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425
Israel JF, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Hornby TG (2006) Metabolic costs and muscle activity patterns during robotic- and therapist-assisted treadmill walking in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury. Phys Ther 86:1466–1478. doi:10.2522/ptj.20050266
Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:718–727
Kitago T, Krakauer JW (2013) Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol 110:93–103. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52901-5.00008-3
Klein J, Spencer S, Allington J et al (2010) Optimization of a parallel shoulder mechanism to achieve a high-force, low-mass, robotic-arm exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Robotics 26(4):710–715. doi:10.1109/TRO.2010.2052170
Krebs HI, Palazzolo JJ, Dipietro L et al (2003) Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robots 15:7–20. doi:10.1023/A:1024494031121
Lee J, Choi S (2010) Effects of haptic guidance and disturbance on motor learning: potential advantage of haptic disturbance. In: 2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium. pp 335–342
Lotze M, Braun C, Birbaumer N et al (2003) Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. Brain J Neurol 126:866–872
Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2009) Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J NeuroEng Rehabil 6:20. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-20
Marchal-Crespo L, McHughen S, Cramer SC, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2010) The effect of haptic guidance, aging, and initial skill level on motor learning of a steering task. Exp Brain Res 201:209–220. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2026-8
Marchal-Crespo L, van Raai M, Rauter G et al (2013) The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task. Exp Brain Res 231:277–291. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3690-2
Marchal-Crespo L, López-Olóriz J, Jaeger L, Riener R (2014a) Optimizing learning of a locomotor task: amplifying errors as needed. Conf Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Conf 2014:5304–5307. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944823
Marchal-Crespo L, Schneider J, Jaeger L, Riener R (2014b) Learning a locomotor task: with or without errors? J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:25. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-25
Marchal-Crespo L, Wolf P, Gerig N, et al (2015) The role of skill level and motor task characteristics on the effectiveness of robotic training: first results. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR). pp 151–156
Marchal-Crespo L, Michels L, Jaeger L et al (2017) Effect of error augmentation on brain activation and motor learning of a complex locomotor task. Front Neurosci. doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00526
McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV (1989) Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 60:48–58. doi:10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
Milot M-H, Marchal-Crespo L, Green CS et al (2010) Comparison of error-amplification and haptic-guidance training techniques for learning of a timing-based motor task by healthy individuals. Exp Brain Res 201:119–131. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2014-z
Muratori LM, Lamberg EM, Quinn L, Duff SV (2013) Applying principles of motor learning and control to upper extremity rehabilitation. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther 26:94–102. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2012.12.007 (quiz 103)
Nef T, Guidali M, Riener R (2009) ARMin III-arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation. Appl Bionics Biomech 6:127–142. doi:10.1080/11762320902840179
Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wünsche B (2014) Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:137. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-137
Novak D, Nagle A, Keller U, Riener R (2014) Increasing motivation in robot-aided arm rehabilitation with competitive and cooperative gameplay. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:64. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-64
Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2006) Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res 168:368–383. doi:10.1007/s00221-005-0097-8
Proteau L (2005) Visual afferent information dominates other sources of afferent information during mixed practice of a video-aiming task. Exp Brain Res 161:441–456. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2090-z
Reinkensmeyer DJ, Housman SJ (2007) “If I can’t do it once, why do it a hundred times?”: connecting volition to movement success in a virtual environment motivates people to exercise the arm after stroke. In: 2007 Virtual Rehabilitation, Venice, pp 44–48. doi:10.1109/ICVR.2007.4362128
Reinkensmeyer DJ, Akoner O, Ferris DP, Gordon KE (2009) Slacking by the human motor system: computational models and implications for robotic orthoses. Conf Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Conf 2009:2129–2132. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333978
Riener R, Lünenburger L, Jezernik S et al (2005) Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental results. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 13:380–394. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848628
Rüdt S, Moos M, Seppey S, et al (2016) Towards more efficient robotic gait training: a novel controller to modulate movement errors. In: 2016 6th IEEE international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob). pp 876–881
Ryan RM (1982) Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 43:450–461. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB (1984) Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull 95:355–386
Scheidt RA, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Conditt MA et al (2000) Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. J Neurophysiol 84:853–862
Schmidt RA, Bjork RA (1992) New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychol Sci 3:207–217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
Schmidt R, Lee T (2010) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign
Seidler RD, Noll DC, Thiers G (2004) Feedforward and feedback processes in motor control. NeuroImage 22:1775–1783. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.05.003
Seidler RD, Kwak Y, Fling BW, Bernard JA (2013) Neurocognitive mechanisms of error-based motor learning. Adv Exp Med Biol 782:39–60. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5465-6_3
Shadmehr R, Smith MA, Krakauer JW (2010) Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:89–108. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135
Shea CH, Wulf G (1999) Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Hum Mov Sci 18:553–571. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(99)00031-7
Sigrist R, Rauter G, Marchal-Crespo L et al (2015) Sonification and haptic feedback in addition to visual feedback enhances complex motor task learning. Exp Brain Res 233:909–925. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4167-7
Tong C, Flanagan JR (2003) Task-specific internal models for kinematic transformations. J Neurophysiol 90:578–585. doi:10.1152/jn.01087.2002
Winstein CJ, Pohl PS, Lewthwaite R (1994) Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. Res Q Exerc Sport 65:316–323. doi:10.1080/02701367.1994.10607635
Wolbrecht ET, Chan V, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bobrow JE (2008) Optimizing compliant, model-based robotic assistance to promote neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 16:286–297. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2008.918389
Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M (1998) Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn Sci 2:338–347
Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Flanagan JR (2001) Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends Cogn Sci 5:487–494
Wu G, Siegler S, Allard P et al (2002) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—part I: ankle, hip, and spine. J Biomech 35:543–548. doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00222-6
Wulf G (2013) Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 6:77–104. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Aniket Nagle, Anja Gut, Killian Baur, Fabian Just, Jaime Duarte, and Verena Klamroth-Marganska. The authors thank the Statistical Consulting service at ETH, Zurich, for their assistance in the statistical analysis. This work was partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) through the Grant number PMPDP2_151319 and the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Robotics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marchal-Crespo, L., Rappo, N. & Riener, R. The effectiveness of robotic training depends on motor task characteristics. Exp Brain Res 235, 3799–3816 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5099-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5099-9