Dual muscle tendon vibration does not impede performance of a goal-directed aiming task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Application of muscle-tendon vibration within the frequency range of 70-120Hz has been studied as a tool to stimulate somatosensory afferents with both the goal of studying human sensorimotor control and of improving post-stroke motor performance. Specific to applications for rehabilitation, current evidence is mixed as to whether dual muscle-tendon vibration is detrimental to the performance of goal-directed upper-limb movements. The current study aimed to determine the effects of muscle-tendon vibration over the wrist flexors and extensors (dual vibration) on performance of a computer goal-directed aiming task. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants were assigned to the vibration or control group. An aiming task that involved acquiring targets by moving an unseen cursor on a screen was performed. Vision of the cursor and hand were unavailable throughout the four blocks of movement execution. Only the vibration group received dual vibration throughout four blocks. Task performance was assessed using measures of endpoint accuracy and timing. Perceived hand location was assessed using a set of questions and a computerised conscious perception task. RESULTS: The vibration group had significantly shorter reaction times, without any change in endpoint accuracy, indicating more efficient and effective movement planning. The vibration group did report illusory movement sensation, which was reduced by block 4. CONCLUSIONS: Dual vibration did not adversely affect aiming accuracy and showed some improvement in reaction time. The present findings support the potential for using dual vibration to stimulate the somatosensory system as participants improved their performance of a novel goal-directed movement. Notably, improvements were maintained when the vibration was removed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".