OBJECTIVE: To determine which order of presentation of practice tasks had the highest effect on using an upper-limb prosthetic simulator. DESIGN: A cohort analytic study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy, able-bodied participants (N=72) randomly assigned to 1 of 8 groups, each composed of 9 men and 9 women. INTERVENTIONS:Participants (n=36) used a myoelectric simulator, and participants (n=36) used a body-powered simulator. On day 1, participants performed 3 tasks in the acquisition phase. On day 2, participants performed a retention test and a transfer test. For each simulator, there were 4 groups of participants: group 1 practiced random and was tested random, group 2 practiced random and was tested blocked, group 3 practiced blocked and was tested random, and group 4 practiced blocked and was tested blocked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initiation time, the time from the starting signal until the beginning of the movement, and movement time, the time from the beginning until the end of the movement. RESULTS: Movement times got faster during acquisition (P<.001). The blocked group had faster movement times (P=.009), and learning in this group extended over the complete acquisition phase (P<.001). However, this advantage disappeared in the retention and transfer tests. Compared with a myoelectric simulator, movements with the body-powered simulator were faster in acquisition (P=.004) and transfer test (P=.034). CONCLUSIONS: Performance in daily life with a prosthesis is indifferent to the structure in which the training is set up. However, practicing in a blocked fashion leads to faster performance; in novice trainees, it might be suggested to practice part of the training tasks in blocks.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine which order of presentation of practice tasks had the highest effect on using an upper-limb prosthetic simulator. DESIGN: A cohort analytic study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy, able-bodied participants (N=72) randomly assigned to 1 of 8 groups, each composed of 9 men and 9 women. INTERVENTIONS:Participants (n=36) used a myoelectric simulator, and participants (n=36) used a body-powered simulator. On day 1, participants performed 3 tasks in the acquisition phase. On day 2, participants performed a retention test and a transfer test. For each simulator, there were 4 groups of participants: group 1 practiced random and was tested random, group 2 practiced random and was tested blocked, group 3 practiced blocked and was tested random, and group 4 practiced blocked and was tested blocked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initiation time, the time from the starting signal until the beginning of the movement, and movement time, the time from the beginning until the end of the movement. RESULTS: Movement times got faster during acquisition (P<.001). The blocked group had faster movement times (P=.009), and learning in this group extended over the complete acquisition phase (P<.001). However, this advantage disappeared in the retention and transfer tests. Compared with a myoelectric simulator, movements with the body-powered simulator were faster in acquisition (P=.004) and transfer test (P=.034). CONCLUSIONS: Performance in daily life with a prosthesis is indifferent to the structure in which the training is set up. However, practicing in a blocked fashion leads to faster performance; in novice trainees, it might be suggested to practice part of the training tasks in blocks.
Authors: William F Cusack; Rebecca Patterson; Scott Thach; Robert S Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: William F Cusack; Scott Thach; Rebecca Patterson; Dan Acker; Robert S Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Aidan Dominic Roche; Ivan Vujaklija; Sebastian Amsüss; Agnes Sturma; Peter Göbel; Dario Farina; Oskar C Aszmann Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Delisa T Lawson; William F Cusack; Regan Lawson; Ashley Hardy; Robert Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: J Mot Behav Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 1.328
Authors: Mohammad M D Sobuh; Laurence P J Kenney; Adam J Galpin; Sibylle B Thies; Jane McLaughlin; Jai Kulkarni; Peter Kyberd Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Matthew J Major; Rebecca L Stine; Craig W Heckathorne; Stefania Fatone; Steven A Gard Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 4.262