Human-centered Assistive Robotics, Technical University of Munich, Karlstraße, 80333, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Department Health and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring, 80992, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024 Oct 18;21(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w.
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.
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.
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.
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.
用于平衡控制的定向振动触觉生物反馈可以以排斥(向振动的相反方向移动)或吸引(向振动的方向移动)刺激编码的形式进行指导。然而,哪种编码方式认知要求较低,对解决高级认知冲突的过程干扰较小,仍未得到解决。
在两项有 30 名(16 名女性)和 35 名(23 名女性)健康年轻成年人参与的被试间研究中,我们分别研究了吸引和排斥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。这两项研究还检查了两种反馈刺激编码在闭眼安静站立时对平衡控制的有效性。
吸引和排斥振动触觉生物反馈都增加了工作记忆和冲突解决研究(分别为研究 I 和 II)中的平衡稳定性(降低躯干摆动变异性),在需要解决认知冲突的多任务中,排斥编码的稳定性增加更大(研究 II)。以线性综合速度准确性得分(LISAS)衡量的认知成本在多任务处理工作记忆需求时对吸引编码更大。当认知冲突解决作为次要认知任务时,两种刺激编码都会同等增加认知成本。
对比了指导性的排斥和吸引刺激编码对身体摆动振动触觉生物反馈的反应相关解释的认知处理需求和平衡稳定增益的影响。两种编码都提高了平衡稳定性,但存在一定的认知成本。然而,对于特定的高级认知过程的干扰,必须对两种编码进行区分。排斥反馈编码在工作记忆负荷时似乎造成的认知成本较低,而在需要解决认知冲突时,它的稳定性略高。这些结果在回避动作对认知控制的已知益处的背景下进行了讨论。