4.7 Article

Higher visual gain contributions to bilateral motor synergies and force control

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23274-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Incheon National University [2022-0094]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effects of altered visual gain levels on bilateral motor synergies and force control. The results showed that higher visual gain conditions increased bilateral motor synergies and target force accuracy. Additionally, a reduction in bad variance from the lowest visual gain condition to higher visual gain conditions was related to increased force accuracy.
This study investigated the effects of altered visual gain levels on bilateral motor synergies determined by the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis and force control. Twelve healthy participants performed bimanual index finger abduction force control tasks at 20% of their maximal voluntary contraction across four different visual gain conditions: 8, 80, 256, and 512 pixels/N. Quantifying force accuracy and variability within a trial provided a bimanual force control outcome. The UCM analysis measured bilateral motor synergies, a proportion of good variance to bad variance across multiple trials. Correlation analyses determined whether changes in the UCM variables were related to changes in force control variables from the lowest to highest visual gain conditions, respectively. Multiple analyses indicated that the three highest visual gain conditions in comparison to the lowest visual gain increased values of bilateral motor synergies and target force accuracy. The correlation findings showed that a reduction of bad variance from the lowest to three highest visual gain conditions was related to increased force accuracy. These findings reveal that visual gain greater than 8 pixels/N facilitates bimanual force control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available