Key result
Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback encoding caused less cognitive interference during working memory tasks compared to Attractive encoding, while both encodings effectively improved balance stability.
Why the study?
It remained unresolved whether Attractive or Repulsive directional vibrotactile biofeedback encodings for balance control are less cognitively demanding and interfere less with high-level cognitive processes.
Does directional vibrotactile biofeedback encoding (Attractive vs Repulsive) affect cognitive load and balance stability during multitasking in healthy young adults?
RCT (n=65)
Open-label
Covariate adaptive randomisation
No
Does directional vibrotactile biofeedback encoding (Attractive vs Repulsive) affect cognitive load and balance stability during multitasking in healthy young adults?
Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback encoding improves balance stability with lower working memory cognitive costs compared to attractive encoding in healthy young adults.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Repulsive vibrotactile encoding may lower cognitive load during dual-task balance; extends sensory biofeedback evidence to multitasking in healthy adults.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schulleri et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Healthy young adults (n=65). Repulsive vs Attractive vibrotactile biofeedback vs. No feedback was evaluated on Corrected response time during working memory multitasking (Attractive feedback vs no feedback) (mean difference 0.24 s, p=≤ 0.01). Repulsive vibrotactile biofeedback encoding caused less cognitive interference during working memory tasks compared to Attractive encoding, while both encodings effectively improved balance stability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: