title: Effects of robotic guidance on sensorimotor control: planning vs. online control?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Robotic guidance has been shown to facilitate motor skill acquisition, through altered sensorimotor control, in neurologically impaired and healthy populations.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine if robot-guided practice and online visual feedback availability primarily influences movement planning or online control mechanisms.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this two-experiment study, participants first performed a pre-test involving reaches with or without vision, to obtain baseline measures. In both experiments, participants then underwent an acquisition phase where they either actively followed robot-guided trajectories or trained unassisted. Only in the second experiment, robot-guided or unassisted acquisition was performed either with or without online vision. Following acquisition, all participants completed a post-test that was the same as the pre-test. Planning and online control mechanisms were assessed through endpoint error and kinematic analyses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The robot-guided and unassisted groups generally exhibited comparable changes in endpoint accuracy and precision. Kinematic analyses revealed that only participants who practiced with the robot exhibited significantly reduced the proportion of movement time spent during the limb deceleration phase (i.e., time after peak velocity). This was true regardless of online visual feedback availability during training.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The influence of robot-assisted motor skill acquisition is best explained by improved motor planning processes.
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Gerome A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Manson
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Maria
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Alekhina
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Shirley L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Srubiski
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Camille K
authors.initials: CK
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Arindam
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bhattacharjee
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Luc
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tremblay
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D023381:Endpoint Determination; D056228:Feedback, Sensory; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning; D008297:Male; D009048:Motor Skills; D009422:Nervous System Diseases / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D009862:Online Systems; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D012371:Robotics; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D034941:Upper Extremity; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Motor control; assistance; rehabilitation; robot; upper-limb