Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?

J Neuroeng Rehabil

Department Health and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring, 80992, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

Published: October 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • A study compared the cognitive load and effectiveness of two types of vibrotactile biofeedback (Attractive and Repulsive) for balance control in healthy young adults during multitasking scenarios.
  • Both feedback types improved balance stability while standing still, but Repulsive feedback showed greater effectiveness during tasks that required conflict resolution.
  • Attractive feedback required more cognitive resources when combined with working memory tasks, indicating that while both types benefit balance, their cognitive demands differ.

Article Abstract

Background: Directional vibrotactile biofeedback for balance control can be instructed in the form of Repulsive (to move in the opposite direction of vibrations) or Attractive (to move in the direction of vibrations) stimulus encodings. However, which of these encodings is less cognitively demanding and poses less interference with high-level cognitive processes of conflict resolution remains unresolved.

Methods: In two between-subject studies with 30 (16 females) and 35 (23 females) healthy young adults, respectively, we investigated the cognitive load of Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback on 1) working memory (Study I) and 2) cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Both studies also examined the effectiveness of both feedback stimulus encodings on balance control during quiet standing with eyes closed.

Results: Both Attractive and Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback increased balance stability (reduced trunk sway variability) in both the working memory and the conflict resolution study (Study I and II, respectively) with a greater increase of stability for the Repulsive encoding during multitasking demanding cognitive conflict resolution (Study II). Cognitive costs, measured in terms of the Linear Integrated Speed-Accuracy Score (LISAS), were greater for the Attractive encoding during multitasking with working memory demands. When cognitive conflict resolution was required as a secondary cognitive task, both stimulus encodings increased cognitive costs equally.

Conclusions: The effects of instructed Repulsive and Attractive stimulus encodings for the response-related interpretation of vibrotactile biofeedback of body sway were contrasted with respect to cognitive processing demands and balance stabilisation benefits. Both encodings improved balance stability but at certain cognitive costs. Regarding interference with specific high-level cognitive processes, however, a distinction has to be made between both encodings. Repulsive feedback encoding seems to cause less cognitive costs on working memory load and slightly greater stabilisation when cognitive conflict resolution is required. These results are discussed in the context of the known benefits of avoidance actions on cognitive control.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488272PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01476-wDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conflict resolution
24
vibrotactile biofeedback
20
stimulus encodings
16
working memory
16
cognitive conflict
16
cognitive costs
16
cognitive
15
resolution study
12
balance control
8
direction vibrations
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!