Effect of augmented visual feedback from a virtual reality simulation system on manual dexterity training

European Journal of Dental Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 10-16

  Wierinck, Els ^a   Puttemans, V ^a   Swinnen, S ^a   van Steenberghe, D ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF IMAGING AND PATHOLOGY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Augmented feedback; Guidance; Skill acquisition; Transfer; Virtual reality

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL SURGERY; EDUCATION; ENDODONTICS; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; LEARNING; LONG TERM MEMORY; METHODOLOGY; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TEACHING; TOOTH INJURY; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL PULP EXPOSURE; DENTISTRY, OPERATIVE; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; LEARNING; MOTOR SKILLS; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); TEACHING; TOOTH INJURIES; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 14544298450     PISSN: 13965883     EISSN: 16000579     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00351.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Effects of delayed visual feedback on jaw, finger, and toe positioning in man. J Mot Behav 1995: 27: 31-40.
2. Sidaway B, Yook D, Fairweather M. Visual and verbal guidance in the learning of a novel motor skill. J Hum Mov Stud 2001: 40: 43-63.
3. Schmidt RA. In: Motor action perspectives on motor behavior. Meijer OG, Roth K, eds. Complex movement behavior: the motor-action controversy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988: 3-44.
4. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Jaw, head, finger tracking behaviour with delayed visual feedback. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1993: 3: 103-111.
5. Posner MI, Nissen JM, Klein R. Visual dominance: an information processing account of its origin and significance. Psychol Rev 1976: 83: 157-171.
6. Buchanan JA. Use of simulation technology in dental education. J Dent Educ 2001: 65: 1225-1231.
7. Urbankova A, Lichtenthal R. DentSim virtual reality in preclinical operative dentistry to improve psychomotor skills-a pilot study. J Dent Educ 2002: 66: 284.
8. LeBlanc V, Urbankova A, Hadavi F, Lichtenthal R. A preliminary study in using virtual reality to train dental students. J Dent Educ 2004: 68: 378-383.
9. Jasinevicius TR, Landers MA, Nelson SS. An evaluation of two simulation systems: computer assisted versus traditional simulator. J Dent Educ 2002: 66: 300.
10. Imber S, Shapira G, Gordon M, Judes H, Metzger Z. A virtual reality dental simulator predicts performance in an operative dentistry manikin course. Eur J Dent Educm 2003: 7: 160-163.
11. Quinn F, Keogh P, McDonald A, Hussey D. A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of conventional and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003: 7: 13-19.
12. Quinn F, Keogh P, McDonald A, Hussey D. A study comparing the effectiveness of conventional training and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003: 7: 164-169.
13. Annett J. Feedback and human behaviour. Middlesex: Penguin books, 1969.
14. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull 1984: 95: 355-386.
15. Schmidt RA, Wulf G. Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: implications for training and stimulation. Hum Factors 1997: 39: 509-525.
16. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Verschueren S. Relative phase alternations during bimanual skill acquisition. J Mot Behav 1995: 27: 263-274.
17. Swinnen SP. Information feedback for motor skill learning: a review. In: Zelaznik HN, ed. Advances in motor learning and control. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1996: 37-66.
18. Swinnen SP, Lee TD, Verschueren S, Serrien DJ, Bogaerds H. Interlimb coordination: learning and transfer under feedback conditions. Hum Mov Sci 1997: 16: 749-785.
19. Rose JT, Buchanan JA, Sarrett DC. The DentSim system. J Dent Educ 1999: 63: 421-423.
20. Barnett ML, Ross D, Schmidt A, Todd B. Motor skill learning and the specificity of training principle. Res Q 1973: 44: 440-447.
21. Proteau L, Marteniuk R, Girouard Y, Dugas C. On the type of information used to control and learn an aiming movement after moderate and extensive training. Hum Mov Sci 1987: 6: 181-199.
22. Lintern G, Sheppard DJ, Parker DL, Yates KE, Nolan MD. Simulator design and instructional features for airto- ground attack: a transfer study. Hum Factors 1989:31: 87-99.
23. Schendel JD, Heller FH, Finley DL, Hawley JK. Use of the Weaponeer Marksmanship Trainer in predicting M16A1 rifle qualification performance. Hum Factors 1985: 27:313-325.
24. Schmidt RA, Lange C, Young DE. Optimizing summary knowledge of results for skill learning. Hum Mov Sci 1990: 9: 325-348.
25. Schmidt RA, Young DE, Swinnen SP, Shapiro DC. Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1989: 15: 352-359.
26. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1990: 16: 677-691.
27. Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 1954: 47: 381-391.
28. Henry FM. Specificity versus generality in learning motor skills. In: Brown RC, Kenyon GS, eds. Classical studies on physical activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968: 328-331.
29. Lee TD. Transfer-appropriate processing: a framework for conceptualizing practice effects in motor learning. In: Meijer OG, Roth K, eds. Complex movement behaviour: the motor-action controversy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988: 201-215.
30. Morris CD, Bransford JD, Franks JJ. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1977: 16: 519-533.