Psychological Research

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 203–209 | Cite as

Delayed sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task

  • T. Mulder
  • W. Hulstijn
Article
Received:

Summary

Generally the therapeutical effect of EMG feedback is viewed in terms of the immediate contiguity between response and information. According to this view any feedback delay would deteriorate the result. In this article the validity of this notion has been investigated. Three groups of normal subjects were required to perform a difficult movement under three feedback conditions: immediate EMG feedback, delayed EMG feedback, and a control (no EMG feedback) condition. The results indicated a significant difference between the EMG feedback groups and the control condition. However, no such difference was found between the immediate and delayed feedback conditions. The results suggested that the immediacy of the feedback is not the main factor in EMG feedback, but the specificity of the information.

Keywords

Therapeutical Effect Feedback Condition Motor Task Sensory Feedback Delayed Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J.A. (1971). A closed loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J.A. (1976) Issues for a closed loop theory of motor learning. In G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Belanger, A.Y., & Chapman, A.E. (1977). Function and training of the abductor hallucis muscle in cases of mild hallux valgus. Phytiotherapy Canada, 29, 205–210.Google Scholar
  4. Brudny, J. (1982). Biofeedback in chronic neurological cases: therapeutic electromyography. In L. White & B. Tursky (Eds.), Clinical biofeedback: efficacy and mechanisms. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brudny, J., Korein, J., Grynbaum, B., Friedman, L.W., Weinstein, S., Sachs-Frankel, G., & Belandres, P.V. (1976). EMG feedback therapy: review of treatment of 114 patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 57, 55–61.Google Scholar
  6. Delagi, E.F., & Perotto, A. (1980). Anatomic guide for the electromyographer: the limbs. Springfield, Ill: Thomas Publ.Google Scholar
  7. Earnshaw, H.J., Lubbock, G., & Ellis, R.E. (1981). Clinical application of the Exeter Posture Monitor. Physiotherapy, 11, 326–328.Google Scholar
  8. Gottlieb, G.L., Agarwal, G.C. (1970). Filtering of electromyographic signals. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 49, 142–146.Google Scholar
  9. Grynbaum, B.B., Brudny, J., Korein, J., & Belandres, P.V. (1976). Sensory feedback for stroke patients. Geriatrics, 6, 43–47.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, F.A. (1979). Treatment with a position-controlled head stabilizer. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 58, 169–184.Google Scholar
  11. Herman, R. (1973). Augmented sensory feedback in control of limb movement. In W.S. Field & L.A. Leavitt (Eds.), Neural organization and its relevance to prosthetics. New York: Intercontinental Medical Book Corp.Google Scholar
  12. Inglis, J., Campbell, D., & Donald, M.W. (1976). Electromyographic biofeedback and neuromuscular rehabilitation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8, 299–323.Google Scholar
  13. Kasser, R.J., & Lehr, R.P. (1979). Electromyographic frequency response of the biceps brachii in an isometric contraction to fatigue. Electromyography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 19, 175–181.Google Scholar
  14. Keefe, F.J., & Surwit, R.S. (1978). Electromyographic biofeedback: behavioral treatment of neuromuscular disorders. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 13–25.Google Scholar
  15. Keele, S.W. (1981). Behavioral analysis of movement. In V.B. Brooks (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology, Volume II, Motor Control, part 2, Bethesda: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
  16. Keele, S.W. (1982). Learning and control of coordinated motor patterns: the programming perspective. In J.A.S. Kelso (Ed.), Human motor behavior: an introduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Mann, R., & Inman, V.T. (1964). Phasic activity of intrinsic muscles of the foot. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 46, 469–481.Google Scholar
  18. Middaugh, S.J. (1978). EMG feedback as a muscle reeducation technique: a controlled study. Physical Therapy, 58, 15–22.Google Scholar
  19. Mulder, Th. (1985). The learning of motor control following brain damage: experimental and clinical studies. Lisse: Swets & ZeitlingerGoogle Scholar
  20. Mulder, Th., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Sensory feedback therapy and theoretical knowledge of motor control and learning. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 63, 226–244.Google Scholar
  21. Mulder, Th., & Hulstijn, W. (1985). Sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 110–128.Google Scholar
  22. Newell, K.M. (1976). Knowledge of results and motor learning. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 4, 195–228.Google Scholar
  23. Newell, K.M. (1981). Skill learning. In: D. Holding (Ed.) Human Skills. London: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Roy, E.A., & Marteniuk, R.G. (1974). Mechanisms of control in motor performance: closed loop vs motor programming control Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 985–991.Google Scholar
  25. Salmoni, A.W., Schmidt, R.A., & Walter, C.B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 355–386.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt, R.A. (1982). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  27. Summers, J.J. (1981). Motor programs. In D. Holding (Ed.) Human Skills. London: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Van der Locht, H.M., Van der Straaten, J.H.M., & Vredenbregt, J. (1980). Hybrid amplifier-electrode module for measuring surface electromyographic potentials. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 18, 119–122Google Scholar
  29. Wolf, S.L. (1979). Anatomical and physiological basis for biofeedback. In J.V. Basmajian (Ed.). Biofeedback principles and practices for clinicians. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  30. Wolf, S.L. (1983). Electromyographic biofeedback applications to stroke patients: a critical review. Physical Therapy, 63, 1448–1455.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Mulder
    • 1
  • W. Hulstijn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations