↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Error Augmentation on Brain Activation and Motor Learning of a Complex Locomotor Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of Error Augmentation on Brain Activation and Motor Learning of a Complex Locomotor Task
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00526
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Marchal-Crespo, Lars Michels, Lukas Jaeger, Jorge López-Olóriz, Robert Riener

Abstract

Up to date, the functional gains obtained after robot-aided gait rehabilitation training are limited. Error augmenting strategies have a great potential to enhance motor learning of simple motor tasks. However, little is known about the effect of these error modulating strategies on complex tasks, such as relearning to walk after a neurologic accident. Additionally, neuroimaging evaluation of brain regions involved in learning processes could provide valuable information on behavioral outcomes. We investigated the effect of robotic training strategies that augment errors-error amplification and random force disturbance-and training without perturbations on brain activation and motor learning of a complex locomotor task. Thirty-four healthy subjects performed the experiment with a robotic stepper (MARCOS) in a 1.5 T MR scanner. The task consisted in tracking a Lissajous figure presented on a display by coordinating the legs in a gait-like movement pattern. Behavioral results showed that training without perturbations enhanced motor learning in initially less skilled subjects, while error amplification benefited better-skilled subjects. Training with error amplification, however, hampered transfer of learning. Randomly disturbing forces induced learning and promoted transfer in all subjects, probably because the unexpected forces increased subjects' attention. Functional MRI revealed main effects of training strategy and skill level during training. A main effect of training strategy was seen in brain regions typically associated with motor control and learning, such as, the basal ganglia, cerebellum, intraparietal sulcus, and angular gyrus. Especially, random disturbance and no perturbation lead to stronger brain activation in similar brain regions than error amplification. Skill-level related effects were observed in the IPS, in parts of the superior parietal lobe (SPL), i.e., precuneus, and temporal cortex. These neuroimaging findings indicate that gait-like motor learning depends on interplay between subcortical, cerebellar, and fronto-parietal brain regions. An interesting observation was the low activation observed in the brain's reward system after training with error amplification compared to training without perturbations. Our results suggest that to enhance learning of a locomotor task, errors should be augmented based on subjects' skill level. The impacts of these strategies on motor learning, brain activation, and motivation in neurological patients need further investigation.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Other 9 6%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Neuroscience 12 8%
Psychology 9 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 46 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,899,670
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,007
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,458
of 328,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#74
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.