Skip to main content

Table 1 Performance changes in nominal feedback conditions (mean ± between-subjects standard deviation) a

From: Effects of kinematic vibrotactile feedback on learning to control a virtual prosthetic arm

Measure

Group

p -value b

Control

Position VIBF

Velocity VIBF

Data

Early practice

Error (deg)

28 ± 31

31 ± 13

32 ± 16

.873

Movement time (s)

2.6 ± 0.6

2.3 ± 0.7

2.2 ± 0.5

.324

Skill

0.0 ± 1.0

−0.09 ± 0.5

−0.1 ± 0.6

.924

Late practice

Error (deg)

6.3 ± 5.6

5.6 ± 2.4

7.3 ± 6.9

.775

Movement time (s)

1.8 ± 0.3

1.7 ± 0.3

1.6 ± 0.3

.396

Skill

0.9 ± 0.2

0.9 ± 0.07

0.8 ± 0.2

.672

Improvement

Error (deg)

22 ± 25

25 ± 16

24 ± 14

.859

Movement time (s)

0.8 ± 0.8

0.6 ± 0.6

0.6 ± 0.5

.710

Skill

0.9 ± 0.6

1.0 ± 0.5

0.9 ± 0.5

.791

Exponential fit

Improvement ratec

Error

27 ± 19

40 ± 32

34 ± 36

.723

Movement time

44 ± 22

35 ± 34

59 ± 24

.327

Skill

40 ± 56

36 ± 28

46 ± 59

.933

Plateau

Error (deg)

5.5 ± 1.4

5.9 ± 1.8

4.5 ± 2.7

.718

Movement time (s)

1.6 ± 0.2

1.7 ± 0.3

1.4 ± 0.6

.748

Skill

0.90 ± 0.04

0.94 ± 0.13

0.78 ± 0.3

.350

  1. aNominal conditions are: 1) only visual feedback (the control group), 2) vision with position-based vibrotactile feedback (VIBF), and 3) vision with velocity-based VIBF.
  2. bFor main effect of group.
  3. cUnits are trials taken for measure to improve by about 63.2%.
Back to article page

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

ISSN: 1743-0003

Contact us