Exercise, Feedback, and Biofeedback

  • Pauline E. Chiarelli
  • Kate H. Moore


Motor learning is a complicated process resulting in the acquisition of new and, after practice, relatively permanent motor skills. There are three stages to motor learning. The first stage is called the cognitive stage and involves a person learning exactly what is required to perform a particular task and exactly how to perform that task correctly.1 In this stage of learning, feedback is essential if the motor task is to be reproduced precisely. The second stage involves “fine tuning” of the new skill. Mistakes are made less and less frequently until, finally, the task becomes automatic and does not require much attention during its execution, which is the third stage of skill acquisition.2 Although practice of the specific motor learning task is of prime importance, feedback is considered the next most important variable.3


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gentile A. Skill aquisition: action, movement and neuromotor processes. In: Carr J, Shepherd R, Gordon J, editors. Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems; 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kisner C, Colby L. Therapeutic exercise: Foundational concepts. In: Kisner C, Colby L, editors. Therapeutic exercise: Foundations and techniques. Philadelphia: FA Davis Co; 2002;3–33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson D. Teaching psychomotor skills. In: Shepard KF, Jensen GM, editors. Handbook of teaching for physical therapists. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997:271.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNevin N, Gabriele W, Carlson C. Effects of attentional focus, self control and dyad training on motor learning: Implications for physical rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2000;80(4):373–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 4a.
    Kegel AH. Progressive resistance exercise in the functional restoration of the perineal muscles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1948;56:238–248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    Haslam J. Biofeedback for the assessment and reeducation of the pelvic floor musculature. In: Laycock J, Haslam J, editors. Therapeutic management of incontinence and pelvic pain. London: Springer-Verlag; 2002:75–81.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Dietz H, Clarke B. The urethral pressure profile and ultrasound imaging of the lower urinary tract. Int Urogynecol J. 2001(B);12(1):38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    Dietz H, Wilson P, Clarke B. The use of perineal ultrasound to quantify levator activity and teach pelvic floor muscle exercise. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:166–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Bo K, Larsen S, Oseid S, et al. Knowledge about and the ability to perform correct pelvic floor muscle exercises in women with urinary stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 1988;7(7):261–262.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Bump RC, Hurst G, Fantl JA, et al. Assessment of Kegel pelvic muscle exercise performance after brief verbal instruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(2):322–329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    Schüssler B. Radiological evaluation of the pelvic floor and viscera. In: Schüssler B, Laycock J, Norton P, Stanton S, editors. Pelvic floor reeducation: Principles and practice. London: Springer-Verlag; 1994:75–82.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Chiarelli P. Female urinary incontinence in Australia: prevalence and prevention in postpartum women [doctoral thesis]. Newcastle (Australia): University of Newcastle; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Chiarelli P, Cockburn J. Promoting urinary continence in women following delivery: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2002;324(25):1241–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    Chiarelli P, Brown W. Perineal elevation — the reliability testing of a new measure of pelvic floor muscle function. In: Continence Foundation of Australia 8th National Conference on Incontinence. Sydney: Continence Foundation of Australia; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Plevnik S. New method for testing and strengthening of pelvic floor muscles. In: 15th annual meeting of the International Continence Society. London: ICS; 1988:95–1049.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Basmajian. Muscles alive. Their functions revealed by electromyography. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1974.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    LeCraw D, Wolf S. Electromyographic biofeedback (EMGBF) for neuromuscular relaxation and reeducation. In: Gersh M, editor. Electrotherapy in rehabilitation. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company; 1993:291–327.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Peschers U, Gingelmaier A, Jundt K, et al. Evaluation of pelvic floor muscle strength using four different techniques. Int Urogynecol J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:27–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Thompson J, Briffa K, Court S. The comparison between transperineal and transabdominal ultrasound in the assessment of women performing pelvic floor exercises. In: Continence Foundation of Australia (CFA) 12th National Conference. Sydney: CFA; 2003:39.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Cardozo L. Detrusor instability. In: Stanton S, editor. Clinical gynaecologic urology. St. Louis: C V Mosby; 1984:193–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline E. Chiarelli
    • 1
  • Kate H. Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.Discipline of Physiotherapy School of Health SciencesUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.Department of UrogynaecologyUniversity of New South Wales St George HospitalSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations