↓ Skip to main content

The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
The effects of attractive vs. repulsive instructional cuing on balance performance
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0131-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Kinnaird, Jaehong Lee, Wendy J. Carender, Mohammed Kabeto, Bernard Martin, Kathleen H. Sienko

Abstract

Torso-based vibrotactile feedback has been shown to improve postural performance during quiet and perturbed stance in healthy young and older adults and individuals with balance impairments. These systems typically include tactors distributed around the torso that are activated when body motion exceeds a predefined threshold. Users are instructed to "move away from the vibration". However, recent studies have shown that in the absence of instructions, vibrotactile stimulation induces small (~1°) non-volitional responses in the direction of its application location. It was hypothesized that an attractive cuing strategy (i.e., "move toward the vibration") could improve postural performance by leveraging this natural tendency. Eight healthy older adults participated in two non-consecutive days of computerized dynamic posturography testing while wearing a vibrotactile feedback system comprised of an inertial measurement unit and four tactors that were activated in pairs when body motion exceeded 1° anteriorly or posteriorly. A crossover design was used. On each day participants performed 24 repetitions of Sensory Organization Test condition 5 (SOT5), three repetitions each of SOT 1-6, three repetitions of the Motor Control Test, and five repetitions of the Adaptation Test. Performance metrics included A/P RMS, Time-in-zone and 95 % CI Ellipse. Performance improved with both cuing strategies but participants performed better when using repulsive cues. However, the rate of improvement was greater for attractive versus repulsive cuing. The results suggest that when the cutaneous signal is interpreted as an alarm, cognition overrides sensory information. Furthermore, although repulsive cues resulted in better performance, attractive cues may be as good, if not better, than repulsive cues following extended training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 20 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#935
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,974
of 300,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.