用于姿势控制的振动触觉生物反馈会干扰认知过程吗?

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Katrin H Schulleri, Farbod Feizian, Martina Steinböck, Dongheui Lee, Leif Johannsen
{"title":"用于姿势控制的振动触觉生物反馈会干扰认知过程吗?","authors":"Katrin H Schulleri, Farbod Feizian, Martina Steinböck, Dongheui Lee, Leif Johannsen","doi":"10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Directional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.</p>","PeriodicalId":16384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?\",\"authors\":\"Katrin H Schulleri, Farbod Feizian, Martina Steinböck, Dongheui Lee, Leif Johannsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Directional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488272/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:用于平衡控制的定向振动触觉生物反馈可以用排斥性(向振动的相反方向移动)或吸引性(向振动的方向移动)刺激编码的形式进行指导。然而,这两种编码哪一种对认知的要求更低,对解决冲突的高级认知过程的干扰更小,这个问题仍未解决:在分别对 30 名(16 名女性)和 35 名(23 名女性)健康年轻人进行的两项主体间研究中,我们调查了 "吸引性 "和 "排斥性 "振动触觉生物反馈对 1) 工作记忆(研究 I)和 2) 认知冲突解决(研究 II)的认知负荷。这两项研究还考察了两种反馈刺激编码对闭眼安静站立时平衡控制的有效性:结果:在工作记忆和冲突解决研究(分别为研究 I 和研究 II)中,吸引性和排斥性振动触觉生物反馈都提高了平衡稳定性(减少了躯干摇摆变异性),而在要求解决认知冲突的多任务处理中(研究 II),排斥性编码的稳定性提高幅度更大。以线性综合速度-准确度得分(LISAS)来衡量,在需要工作记忆的多任务处理中,吸引力编码的认知成本更高。当需要将解决认知冲突作为次要认知任务时,两种刺激编码都会同样增加认知成本:在认知处理需求和平衡稳定性益处方面,对身体摇摆振动触觉生物反馈的反应相关解释中,指令性排斥和吸引力刺激编码的效果进行了对比。两种编码都能提高平衡稳定性,但都要付出一定的认知代价。不过,关于对特定高级认知过程的干扰,两种编码方式必须加以区分。当需要解决认知冲突时,排斥性反馈编码似乎对工作记忆负荷造成的认知成本较低,稳定性略高。我们将结合已知的回避行为对认知控制的益处来讨论这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?

Background: Directional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved.

Methods: In two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed.

Results: Both Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally.

Conclusions: The effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.90%
发文量
122
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation considers manuscripts on all aspects of research that result from cross-fertilization of the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and physical medicine & rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信