A comparison of manual guidance and knowledge of results in the learning of a weight-bearing skill

Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 32-38

  Sidaway, Ben ^a   Ahn, Soyeon ^b   Boldeau, Pansy ^c   Griffin, Scott ^b,d   Noyes, Bethany ^e   Pelletier, Kristin ^f  

^a HUSSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SWEDISH COVENANT HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Step N Stride Rehab   (United States)

^d Cary Medical Center   (United States)

^e Orthopaedic Therapy Associates   (United States)

^f Acadia Sports Rehab   (United States)

Author keywords

Knowledge of results; Manual guidance; Motor learning weight bearing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY EQUILIBRIUM; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LONG TERM MEMORY; MALE; MANIPULATIVE MEDICINE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REINFORCEMENT; WEIGHT BEARING;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MOTOR SKILLS; MUSCULOSKELETAL EQUILIBRIUM; MUSCULOSKELETAL MANIPULATIONS; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT, VERBAL; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 44449149724     PISSN: 15570576     EISSN: 15570584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e318165948d     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Sackley CM, Baguly BI. Visual feedback after stroke with balance performance monitor: two single case studies. Clin Rehabil. 1993;7: 189-195.
2. Sackley CM. Falls, sway, and symmetry of weight-bearing after stroke. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:1-4.
3. Bourbonnais D, Bilodeau S, Lepage Y, et al. Effect of force-feedback treatments in patients with chronic motor deficits after a stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:890-897.
4. Ledebt A, Becher J, Kapper J, et al. Balance training with visual feedback in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: effect on stance and gait. Motor Control. 2005;9:459-468.
5. Winstein CJ, Gardner ER, McNeal DR, et al. Standing balance training: effect on balance and locomotion in hemiparetic adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:755-762.
6. Bobath B. Adult Hemiplegia: Evaluation and Treatment. 3rd ed. Oxford: Heinemann Medical Books, 1990.
7. Davies PM. Steps to Follow: The Comprehensive Treatment of Patients with Hemiplegia. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
8. Ostrosky KM. Facilitation vs motor control: motor learning models in rehabilitation. Clin Management. 1990;10:34-40.
9. Horak FB. Assumptions underlying motor control for neurologic rehabilitation. In: Lister MJ, ed. Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems: Proceedings of the II Step Conference. Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy, 1991:11-27.
10. Majsak MJ. Application of motor learning principles to the stroke population. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1996;3:27-59.
11. Langhammer B, Stanghelle JK. Bobath or motor relearning programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:361-369.
12. Mudie MH, Winzeler-Mercay U, Radwan S, et al. Training symmetry of weight distribution after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study comparing task-related reach, Bobath and feedback training approaches. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:582-592.
13. van Vliet PM, Lincoln NB, Foxall A. Comparison of Bobath based and movement science based treatment for stroke: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:503-508.
14. Tsutsui S, Imanaka K. Effect of manual guidance on acquiring a new bimanual coordination pattern. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74:104-109.
15. Winstein C, Pohl P, Lewthwaite R. Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994;65:316-323.
16. Wulf G, Shea C, Whitacre C. Physical-guidance benefits in learning a complex motor skill. J Mot Behav. 1998;30:367-380.
17. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and reappraisal. Psychol Bull. 1984;95:355-386.
18. Sidaway B, Moore B, Schoenfelder-Zohdi B. Summary and frequency of KR presentation effects on retention of a motor skill. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1991;62:27-32.
19. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances our motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990;16:677-691.
20. Magill RA. Augmented feedback. In: Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. 7th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004:268-304.
21. Park J, Shea C, Wright D. Reduced-frequency concurrent and terminal feedback: a test of the guidance hypothesis. J Mot Behav. 2000;32: 287-296.
22. Annett J. Learning a pressure under conditions of immediate and delayed knowledge of results. Q J Exp Psychol. 1959;11:3-15.
23. Vander Linden DW, Cauraugh JH, Greene TA. The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. Phys Ther. 1993;73:79-87.
24. Winstein C, Pohl P, Cardinale C, et al. Learning a partial-weightbearing skill: effectiveness of two forms of feedback. Phys Ther. 1996;76:985-993.
25. Cirstea CM, Ptito A, Levin MF. Feedback and cognition in arm motor skill reacquisition after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1237-1242.
26. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
27. Schmidt RA, Bjork RA. New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychol Sci. 1992;3:207-217.
28. Sparrow W. Acquisition and retention effects of reduced relative frequency of knowledge of results. Aust J Psychol. 1995;47:97-104.
29. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:811-815.
30. Cheng PT, Wang CM, Chung CY, et al. Effects of visual feedback rhythmic weight-shift training on hemiplegic stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:747-753.
31. Engardt M, Ribbe T, Olsson E. Vertical ground reaction force feedback to enhance stroke patients' symmetrical body-weight distribution while rising/sitting down. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1993;25:41-48.
32. Walker C, Brouwer BJ, Culham EG. Use of visual feedback in retraining balance following acute stroke. Phys Ther. 2000;80:886-895.
33. Wannstedt GT, Herman RM. Use of augmented sensory feedback to achieve symmetrical standing. Phys Ther. 1978;58:553-559.
34. Yoo EY, Bo-in C. The effect of visual feedback plus mental practice on symmetrical weight-bearing training in people with hemiparesis. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:388-397.
35. Swanson LR, Lee TD. Effects of aging and schedules of knowledge of results on motor learning. J Gerontol. 1992;47:406-411.
36. Carnahan H, Vandervoort AA, Swanson LR. The influence of aging and target motion on the control of prehension. Exp Aging Res. 1998;24:289-306.
37. Shea CH, Wulf G. Enhancing motor learning thorough external-focus instruction and feedback. Hum Mov Sci. 1999;18:553-571.
38. Swinnen SP, Schmidt RA, Nicholson DE, et al. Information feedback for skill acquisition: instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990;16:706-716.
39. Newell KM. Motor learning without knowledge of results through the development of a response recognition mechanism. J Mot Behav. 1976;8:209-217.
40. Hogan JC, Yanowitz BA. The role of verbal estimates of movement error in ballistic skill acquisition. J Mot Behav. 1978;10:133-138.
41. Liu J, Wrisberg CA. The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68:145-151.
42. Guadagnoli MA, Kohl RM. Knowledge of results for motor learning: relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. J Mot Behav. 2001;33:217-224.