Quantitative analysis of multi-element synergy stabilizing performance: comparison of three methods with respect to their use in clinical studies

Sandra M.S.F. Freitas, Paulo B. de Freitas, Mechelle Lewis, Xuemei Huang, Mark Latash

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

A number of analyses associated with the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis have been used recently to investigate stability of actions across populations. We explored whether some of those methods have an advantage for clinical studies because they require fewer trials to achieve consistent findings. We compared the number of trials needed for the analysis of inter-trial variance, analysis of motor equivalence, and analysis in the space of referent coordinates. Young healthy adults performed four-finger accurate force production tasks under visual feedback with the right (dominant) and left hand over three days. Three methods [analytical (M1), experimental (M2), and cumulative mean (M3) methods] were used to define the minimal number of trials required to reach certain statistical criteria. Two of these methods, M1 and M2, showed qualitatively similar results. Fewer trials (M1: 5–13, M2: 4–10) were needed for analysis of motor equivalence compared to inter-trial variance analysis (M1: 14–24, M2: 10–14). The third method (M3) showed no major differences among the outcome variables. The index of synergy in the inter-trial variance analysis required a very small number of trials (M1, M2: 2–4). Variables related to referent coordinates required only a few trials (under 3), whereas the synergy index in this analysis required the largest number of trials (M1: 24–34, M2: 12–16). This is the first study to quantify the number of trials needed for UCM-based methods of assessing motor coordination broadly used in clinical studies. Clinical studies can take advantage of specific recommendations based on the current data regarding the number of trials needed for each analysis thus allowing minimizing the test session duration without compromising data reliability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)453-465
Number of pages13
JournalExperimental Brain Research
Volume237
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 4 2019

Fingerprint

Analysis of Variance
Computer Security
Sensory Feedback
Advisory Committees
Fingers
Clinical Studies
Young Adult
Hand
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

@article{354aa68bd7124ec08f72311381ebd499,
title = "Quantitative analysis of multi-element synergy stabilizing performance: comparison of three methods with respect to their use in clinical studies",
abstract = "A number of analyses associated with the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis have been used recently to investigate stability of actions across populations. We explored whether some of those methods have an advantage for clinical studies because they require fewer trials to achieve consistent findings. We compared the number of trials needed for the analysis of inter-trial variance, analysis of motor equivalence, and analysis in the space of referent coordinates. Young healthy adults performed four-finger accurate force production tasks under visual feedback with the right (dominant) and left hand over three days. Three methods [analytical (M1), experimental (M2), and cumulative mean (M3) methods] were used to define the minimal number of trials required to reach certain statistical criteria. Two of these methods, M1 and M2, showed qualitatively similar results. Fewer trials (M1: 5–13, M2: 4–10) were needed for analysis of motor equivalence compared to inter-trial variance analysis (M1: 14–24, M2: 10–14). The third method (M3) showed no major differences among the outcome variables. The index of synergy in the inter-trial variance analysis required a very small number of trials (M1, M2: 2–4). Variables related to referent coordinates required only a few trials (under 3), whereas the synergy index in this analysis required the largest number of trials (M1: 24–34, M2: 12–16). This is the first study to quantify the number of trials needed for UCM-based methods of assessing motor coordination broadly used in clinical studies. Clinical studies can take advantage of specific recommendations based on the current data regarding the number of trials needed for each analysis thus allowing minimizing the test session duration without compromising data reliability.",
author = "Freitas, {Sandra M.S.F.} and {de Freitas}, {Paulo B.} and Mechelle Lewis and Xuemei Huang and Mark Latash",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00221-018-5436-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "237",
pages = "453--465",
journal = "Experimental Brain Research",
issn = "0014-4819",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

Quantitative analysis of multi-element synergy stabilizing performance : comparison of three methods with respect to their use in clinical studies. / Freitas, Sandra M.S.F.; de Freitas, Paulo B.; Lewis, Mechelle; Huang, Xuemei; Latash, Mark.

In: Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 237, No. 2, 04.02.2019, p. 453-465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative analysis of multi-element synergy stabilizing performance

T2 - comparison of three methods with respect to their use in clinical studies

AU - Freitas, Sandra M.S.F.

AU - de Freitas, Paulo B.

AU - Lewis, Mechelle

AU - Huang, Xuemei

AU - Latash, Mark

PY - 2019/2/4

Y1 - 2019/2/4

N2 - A number of analyses associated with the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis have been used recently to investigate stability of actions across populations. We explored whether some of those methods have an advantage for clinical studies because they require fewer trials to achieve consistent findings. We compared the number of trials needed for the analysis of inter-trial variance, analysis of motor equivalence, and analysis in the space of referent coordinates. Young healthy adults performed four-finger accurate force production tasks under visual feedback with the right (dominant) and left hand over three days. Three methods [analytical (M1), experimental (M2), and cumulative mean (M3) methods] were used to define the minimal number of trials required to reach certain statistical criteria. Two of these methods, M1 and M2, showed qualitatively similar results. Fewer trials (M1: 5–13, M2: 4–10) were needed for analysis of motor equivalence compared to inter-trial variance analysis (M1: 14–24, M2: 10–14). The third method (M3) showed no major differences among the outcome variables. The index of synergy in the inter-trial variance analysis required a very small number of trials (M1, M2: 2–4). Variables related to referent coordinates required only a few trials (under 3), whereas the synergy index in this analysis required the largest number of trials (M1: 24–34, M2: 12–16). This is the first study to quantify the number of trials needed for UCM-based methods of assessing motor coordination broadly used in clinical studies. Clinical studies can take advantage of specific recommendations based on the current data regarding the number of trials needed for each analysis thus allowing minimizing the test session duration without compromising data reliability.

AB - A number of analyses associated with the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis have been used recently to investigate stability of actions across populations. We explored whether some of those methods have an advantage for clinical studies because they require fewer trials to achieve consistent findings. We compared the number of trials needed for the analysis of inter-trial variance, analysis of motor equivalence, and analysis in the space of referent coordinates. Young healthy adults performed four-finger accurate force production tasks under visual feedback with the right (dominant) and left hand over three days. Three methods [analytical (M1), experimental (M2), and cumulative mean (M3) methods] were used to define the minimal number of trials required to reach certain statistical criteria. Two of these methods, M1 and M2, showed qualitatively similar results. Fewer trials (M1: 5–13, M2: 4–10) were needed for analysis of motor equivalence compared to inter-trial variance analysis (M1: 14–24, M2: 10–14). The third method (M3) showed no major differences among the outcome variables. The index of synergy in the inter-trial variance analysis required a very small number of trials (M1, M2: 2–4). Variables related to referent coordinates required only a few trials (under 3), whereas the synergy index in this analysis required the largest number of trials (M1: 24–34, M2: 12–16). This is the first study to quantify the number of trials needed for UCM-based methods of assessing motor coordination broadly used in clinical studies. Clinical studies can take advantage of specific recommendations based on the current data regarding the number of trials needed for each analysis thus allowing minimizing the test session duration without compromising data reliability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056868090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056868090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00221-018-5436-7

DO - 10.1007/s00221-018-5436-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 30460392

AN - SCOPUS:85056868090

VL - 237

SP - 453

EP - 465

JO - Experimental Brain Research

JF - Experimental Brain Research

SN - 0014-4819

IS - 2

ER -