The effects of concurrent biomechanical biofeedback on novel skill acquisition

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of concurrent biomechanical biofeedback on the ability of novices to modify relative knee, spine, and elbow motions during a rowing-type task. After six non-instructed practice sessions, novices were assigned to a biofeedback (BFb; n = 7) or control group (Con; n = 7), before six, ten-minute sessions of continuous rowing were performed over two weeks. The BFb group received concurrent, visual biofeedback for developing sequential timing of knee, spine, and elbow motions during the pull. Following the intervention, the BFb group demonstrated delayed elbow flexion initiation (pre-intervention, 46 ± 11% pull; post-intervention, 78 ± 3% pull; p = 0.001). The biofeedback further promoted the consecutive ending of joint rotations (BFb: knee, 69 ± 4% pull; spine, 73 ± 7% pull; elbow, 85 ± 3% pull; Con: knee, 79 ± 8% pull; spine, 28 ± 6% pull; elbow, 79 ± 4% pull) and a move towards the sequential sequencing pattern. Concurrent biomechanical biofeedback during short-term training altered technique, possibly by providing guidance towards the desired movement pattern and increasing error detection and correction capabilities.

Wearable Devices for Biofeedback Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Design Application Rules and Estimate the Effectiveness on Balance and Gait Outcomes in Neurological Diseases

“…Timing refers to when the signal is given with respect to movement execution. Timing can be concurrent, if the feedback is delivered during the execution of the movement, or terminal, if delivered at the end of the movement [ 20 , 21 ]. Moreover, biofeedback can be used for positive or negative reinforcement: positive reinforcement aims to increase a specific movement pattern (to make it occur more frequently), whereas negative reinforcement occurs when the user is asked to reduce a certain movement pattern or behaviour (negative reinforcement aims at making an event occur less frequently) [ 22 , 23 ].…”

The Effect of Self-Analysis of the Movement of Running Long Jump Using a Strobe Picture on College Male Students’ Performance in PE Class

“…Consequently, new knowledge was added to our previous work (Matsui & Azuma, 2019). Hence, it is expected that the basis of this study is helpful to develop teaching techniques that enable PE learners, especially those who have low skills of the movement, to more easily analyze biomechanical parameters (as pointed out by Gorman et al, 2019), which will lead to self-learning or active learning.…”

“…Feedback of sports performance using movies is well known to be effective in improving the movement, especially in closed-skill type sports such as track and field, gymnastics, or swimming (Cooper & Rothstein, 1981). It has also been reported that providing biomechanical parameters such as velocity or angle (henceforth, physics variables) can also be an efficient feedback for improving the movements in these types of sports (Gorman et al, 2019). Generally, operating skills using a motion analysis device are a prerequisite for the acquisition of physics variables, and hence, it is difficult for athletes or learners to obtain biomechanical parameters easily and use them in practice subsequently.…”

The effects of concurrent biomechanical biofeedback on rowing performance at different stroke rates

“…While performing rowing-type tasks at lower SRs, the provision of KP biofeedback has improved relative body segment sequencing (Gorman et al, 2019), boat acceleration profiles (Schaffert & Mattes, 2014), and spatial-temporal consistency of the oar-handle path (Sigrist et al, 2013). Biofeedback has also successfully enhanced the stroke consistency (Anderson et al, 2005) and the power output of more skilled rowers while performing maximally (Spinks & Smith, 1994).…”

“…Despite initial performance enhancements, Schaffert et al (2011) reported that immediately after acoustic biofeedback on boat velocity was turned off, no significant differences from baseline measures were apparent, and although Sigrist et al (2013) improved oar trajectories during delayed retention tests, the effects were reduced for visual as compared to acoustic and haptic biofeedback modalities. Many rowing biofeedback studies neglect to test this dependency concern (e.g., Anderson et al, 2005;Gorman et al, 2019;Lintmeijer et al, 2019). Consequently, the efficacy of such interventions beyond immediate task acquisition, and the practical implications of biofeedback for performance, remain uncertain.…”