↓ Skip to main content

Effects of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes in manual wheelchair propulsion

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Effects of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes in manual wheelchair propulsion
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0209-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marika T. Leving, Riemer J. K. Vegter, Sonja de Groot, Lucas H. V. van der Woude

Abstract

Handrim wheelchair propulsion is a cyclic skill that needs to be learned during rehabilitation. It has been suggested that more variability in propulsion technique benefits the motor learning process of wheelchair propulsion. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes of wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied participants. Variable practice was introduced in the form of wheelchair basketball practice and wheelchair-skill practice. Motor learning was operationalized as improvements in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique. Eleven Participants in the variable practice group and 12 participants in the control group performed an identical pre-test and a post-test. Pre- and post-test were performed in a wheelchair on a motor-driven treadmill (1.11 m/s) at a relative power output of 0.23 W/kg. Energy consumption and the propulsion technique variables with their respective coefficient of variation were calculated. Between the pre- and the post-test the variable practice group received 7 practice sessions. During the practice sessions participants performed one-hour of variable practice, consisting of five wheelchair-skill tasks and a 30 min wheelchair basketball game. The control group did not receive any practice between the pre- and the post-test. Comparison of the pre- and the post-test showed that the variable practice group significantly improved the mechanical efficiency (4.5 ± 0.6% → 5.7 ± 0.7%) in contrast to the control group (4.5 ± 0.6% → 4.4 ± 0.5%) (group x time interaction effect p < 0.001).With regard to propulsion technique, both groups significantly reduced the push frequency and increased the contact angle of the hand with the handrim (within group, time effect). No significant group × time interaction effects were found for propulsion technique. With regard to propulsion variability, the variable practice group increased variability when compared to the control group (interaction effect p < 0.001). Compared to a control, variable practice, resulted in an increase in mechanical efficiency and increased variability. Interestingly, the large relative improvement in mechanical efficiency was concomitant with only moderate improvements in the propulsion technique, which were similar in the control group, suggesting that other factors besides propulsion technique contributed to the lower energy expenditure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 28 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Engineering 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,318,076
of 24,229,740 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#179
of 1,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,014
of 422,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,229,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 422,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.