EFFECT OF CONCURRENT FEEDBACK AND POSTURAL TASK DIFFICULTY ON POSTURAL CONTROL

Date

2022-11-28

Author

Taşçı, Seda
Kirazcı, Sadettin
Çelik, Hüseyin

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

85
views

0
downloads

Cite This

Studies investigating the effect of concurrent feedback reported inconsistent results, especially on motor tasks with different difficulties. There is also lack of studies examining the effects of concurrent feedback on postural tasks with different difficulties. This study was designed to investigated the effect of concurrent visual feedback (CVF) and postural task difficulty (PTD) on postural control in acquisition and retention phases. Participants were 40 university students who were randomly allocated to experimental and control groups based on gender and time of arrival. Participants performed six postural tasks with varying difficulties in one day. The six postural tasks were as follows: quiet stance on firm ground, tandem stance on firm ground, single-leg stance on firm ground, quiet stance on the balance pad, tandem stance on the balance pad, and single-leg stance on the balance pad. Each task was repeated three times for 60 seconds. Instantaneous center of pressure (CoP) location was provided to the experimental group as the source of CVF in acquisition phase, but it was withdrawn in retention phase (24 hours in between). Participants in control group performed same tasks without any feedback in both phases. The assessment parameters were velocity (AP- ML-RD), variability (AP-ML-RD), range (AP- ML-RD), ellipse area, and regularity (i.e., approximate entropy) of CoP trajectory. Data was collected via Bertec force plate and MATLAB R2021b was used for further calculations, and IBM SPSS Statistics 28 was used for statistical analysis. Two-way mixed-design (within-between) repeated measures analysis of variance models showed that in acquisition, postural control was affected by CVF and PTD in terms of variability in the antero-posterior (AP) direction. Postural control was affected by only CVF in terms of variability in the AP and resultant-distance (RD) directions, ellipse area, and approximate entropy. PTD affected postural control in all postural sway parameters. In retention, there was no significant interaction between CVF and PTD nor the main effect of CVF in all CoP parameters, but the main effect of PTD was found in all postural sway parameters. This study indicated that CVF improved variability, ellipse area, and entropy parameters. CVF might increase adaptation to specific contexts and augment sensory integration by preventing cognitive overload and affect postural sway parameters positively. However, limited number of trials and sessions with CVF might be reason for the lack of retention effect.

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/11511/106839

Collections

Department of Physical Education and Sports, Conference / Seminar