跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(54.173.214.227) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/01/29 15:39
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張茹茵
研究生(外文):Ru-Ing Chang
論文名稱:即時回饋及終端回饋學習方式對關節鬆動術學習效果之影響
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Concurrent and Terminal Feedback on Learning Joint Mobilization
指導教授:張冠諒張冠諒引用關係徐阿田徐阿田引用關係鍾高基鍾高基引用關係張志涵張志涵引用關係
指導教授(外文):Guan-Liang ChangAr-Tyan HsuKao-Chi ChungChih-Han Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:醫學工程研究所
學門:工程學門
學類:綜合工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:68
中文關鍵詞:動作學習及時回饋終端回饋關節鬆動術
外文關鍵詞:motor learningconcurrent feedbackterminal feedbackjoint mobilization
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:660
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
關節鬆動術(Joint Mobilization)為治療師以特定程度之力施於目標關節上進行關節評估或治療,目前於學習此技術上仍缺乏客觀量化的方式。本研究目的為:(1)建立一套可提供量化之視覺回饋的盂肱關節模擬學習系統;(2)比較即時回饋(concurrent feedback)及終端回饋(terminal feedback)對學習關節鬆動術之影響,以期能提供較客觀且有效的學習方式。
盂肱關節模擬學習系統(Joint Translation Simulator,簡稱JTS)以伺服馬達模擬關節動作時組織之阻力反應,所需的視覺回饋由螢幕呈現。本實驗使用之標準第二級、第三級力(Kaltenborn之分級方式)。依其定義由材料測試所得之負載-位移關係(load-displacement relationships)算出。36位物理治療系學生為受試者,隨機平分為四組:控制組、無回饋組(no feedback group)、即時回饋組(concurrent feedback group)、及終端回饋組(terminal feedback group)。控制組不參與訓練,無回饋組於訓練時不給予任何資訊回饋。即時回饋組及終端回饋組則於訓練時分別給予量化之即時回饋及終端回饋,每項動作重複75次。所收集之施力化為第二級、第三級力之標準化絕對誤差(normalized absolute errors)進行統計分析。除前測試外,立即記憶測試(immediate retention test)於訓練完成10分鐘後進行,延遲記憶測試(delayed retention test)則於5天後進行。結果顯示於學習期即時回饋及終端回饋組明顯有較正確且一致的表現且明顯優於無回饋組。於2次記憶測試結果顯示,訓練時給予量化回饋所得之學習效果仍存在,但兩組織表現並無明顯差異。即時回饋及終端回饋皆可增進關節鬆動術之學習效果。
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of quantitative concurrent feedback and terminal feedback of performance on learning of joint mobilization. A Joint Translation Simulator (JTS) was designed to simulate tissue response during mobilization. Load-displacement relationships recorded from material testing of specimens were used as practicing models. The Grade II and Grade III force were determined experimentally based on Kaltenborn’s definition of Grades of mobilization. Thirty-six physical therapy students were randomly assigned into four groups: control group, no feedback group, concurrent feedback group, and terminal group. Control group received no skill training, and no feedback group learned to perform joint mobilization without any quantitative feedback. Concurrent or terminal feedback of the performance which contained standard force and applied force was given respectively to the two feedback groups via a monitor. The three experimental groups practiced for 75 trials in each grade of each model while applied forces were measured. This testing was done prior to training (pretest), immediately after training (immediate retention test), and five days after learning phase (delayed retention test). Normalized absolute errors were calculated and analyzed. The results indicated that both concurrent and terminal feedback groups performed more accurately and consistently during acquisition phase than did the no feedback group. Performance of subjects who received feedback while practicing significantly improved during immediate retention tests and five days after training sessions. However, results of our study did not provide further support for the guidance hypothesis. Learning effects of mobilization skills can be enhanced either by quantitative concurrent feedback or by terminal feedback.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Joint Mobilization ………………………........................................................... 1
1.2 Grading Principles of Joint Mobilization ...…………………….…………........ 3
1.3 Conventional Methods to Quantify Joint Mobilization Force ……………........ 5
1.4 Methods of Performance Assessment after Learning …………………………. 9
1.5 Feedback and Guiding Hypothesis for Skill Learning ………………………… 10
1.6 Learning of Joint Mobilization with Feedback ………………………………... 15
1.7 Motivations and Purposes ……………………………………………………... 18
CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 19
2.1 Instrumentation Design ………………………………………………………... 19
2.1.1 Establishment of the Criterion Models ………………………………... 19
2.1.2 Determination of Standard Grade II and Grade III Force …………….. 22
2.1.3 Calibration of Force Transducer ………………………………………. 25
2.1.4 Joint Translation Simulator Design ………………………….…………. 26
2.2 Experimental Procedures ……………………………………………………… 32
2.2.1 Subject Assignment and Instruction …………………………………... 32
2.2.2 Practice ………………………………………………………………... 33
2.2.3 Pretest …………………………………………………………………. 34
2.2.4 Skill Acquisition ………………………………………………………. 34
2.2.5 Immediate Retention Test ……………………………………………... 35
2.2.6 Delayed Retention Test ……………………………………………….. 36
2.3 Data Processing and Analysis …………………………………………………. 38
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 40
3.1 Learning Performance during Skill Acquisition ………………………………. 40
3.2 Effect of Different Categories of Feedback on Skill Learning ………………... 44
3.3 Effect of Long-Term Transfer of Learning ……………………………………. 49
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION 51
4.1 Skill Acquisition of Joint Mobilization ………………………………………... 51
4.2 Effects of Different Categories of Feedback ………………………………….. 56
4.3 Long-Term Transfer of Learning ……………………………………………… 59
4.4 Limitations …………………………………………………………………….. 61
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 64
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………... 65
1. Hertling D. Management of common musculoskeletal disorders : physical therapy principles and methods. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1996.
2. Kaltenborn FM. Manual mobilization of the extremity joints: basic examination and treatment techniques. 4th ed. Oslo: Olaf Norlis Bokhandel, Universitetsgaten, 1989.
3. Mainland G.D. Peripheral manipulation. 3rd ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.
4. Ben-Sorek S, Davis CM. Joint mobilization education and clinical use in the United States. Phys Ther. 1988; 68(6): 1000-4.
5. Conroy DE, Hayes KW. The effect of joint mobilization as a component of comprehensive treatment for primary shoulder impingement syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28(1): 3-14.
6. Dijs HM. Effect of physical therapy on limited joint mobility in the diabetic foot. A pilot study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2000; 90(3): 126-32.
7. Olson VL. Evaluation of joint mobilization treatment. A method. Phys Ther. 1987; 67(3): 351-6.
8. Kisner C, Colby LA. Therapeutic exercise: foundations and techniques. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Davis. 1996.
9. White AA. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1990.
10. Edmond S. Manipulation and mobilization: extremity and spinal techniques. Mosby: St. Louis, 1993.
11. Lee M, Moseley A, Refshauge K. Effect of feedback on learning a vertebral joint mobilization skill. Phys Ther. 1990; 70(2): 97-102.
12. Hsu AT, Chang JH, Ho L. Characterization of tissue resistance during a dorsally directed translational mobilization of the glenohumeral joint. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83(3): 360-6.
13. Matyas TA, Bach TM. The reliability of selected techniques in clinical arthrometrics. Aust J Physiother. 1985; 31: 175-200.
14. Harms MC, Bader DL. Variability of forces applied by experienced therapists during spinal mobilization. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1997; 12(6): 393-399.
15. Harms MC, Innes SM, Bader DL. Bader, Forces measured during spinal manipulative procedures in two age groups. Rheumatology (Oxford), 1999. 38(3): p. 267-74.
16. Harms MC, Milton AM, Cusick G, Bader DL. Instrumentation of a mobilization couch for dynamic load measurement. J Med Eng Technol. 1995; 19(4): 119-22.
17. McQuade KJ, Shelley I, Cvitkovic J. Patterns of stiffness during clinical examination of the glenohumeral joint. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999; 14(9): 620-7.
18. Simmonds MJ, Kumar S, Lechelt E. Use of a spinal model to quantify the forces and motion that occur during therapists'' tests of spinal motion. Phys Ther. 1995; 75(3): 212-22.
19. Magill RA. Motor learning: concepts and applications. Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
20. Adams JA, Bray NW. A closed-loop theory of paired-associate verbal learning. Psychol Rev, 1970. 77(5): p. 385-405.
21. Blackwell JR, Newell KM. The informational role of knowledge of results in motor learning. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1996; 92(2): 119-29.
22. McConnell A., Effect of knowledge of results on attitude formed toward a motor learning task. Res Q. 1976; 47(3): 394-9.
23. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull. 1984; 95(3): 355-86.
24. Sewall LP. Reeve TG. Day RA. Effect of concurrent visual feedback on acquisition of a weightlifting skill. Percept Mot Skills. 1988; 67(3): 715-8.
25. Vander Linden DW, Cauraugh JH, Greene TA. The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. Phys Ther. 1993; 73(2): 79-87.
26. Newell KM. Knowledge of results and motor learning. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1976; 4: 195-228.
27. Park JH, Shea CH, Wright DL. Reduced-frequency concurrent and terminal feedback: a test of the guidance hypothesis. J Mot Behav. 2000; 32(3): 287-96.
28. Winstein CJ. Pohl PS. Lewthwaite R. Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994; 65(4): 316-23.
29. Graves JE. James RJ. Concurrent augmented feedback and isometric force generation during familiar and unfamiliar muscle movements. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1990; 61(1): 75-9.
30. Hebert EP. Landin D. Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback on tennis skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994; 65(3): 250-7.
31. Sassenrath JM. Garverick CM. Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. J Educ Psychol. 1965; 56(5): 259-63.
32. Annett J. Acquisition of skill. Br Med Bull. 1971; 27(3): 266-71.
33. Carnahan H. Vandervoort AA. Swanson LR. The influence of summary knowledge of results and aging on motor learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996; 67(3): 280-7.
34. Guadagnoli MA. Kohl RM. Knowledge of results for motor learning: relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. J Mot Behav. 2001; 33(2): 217-24.
35. McNevin NH. Wulf G. Carlson C. Effects of attentional focus, self-control, and dyad training on motor learning: implications for physical rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2000; 80(4): 373-85.
36. Winstein CJ. Pohl PS. Cardinale C. Green A. Scholtz L. Waters CS. Learning a partial-weight-bearing skill: effectiveness of two forms of feedback. Phys Ther. 1996; 76(9): 985-93.
37. Keating J. Matyas TA. Bach TM. The effect of training on physical therapists'' ability to apply specified forces of palpation. Phys Ther. 1993; 73(1): 45-53.
38. Travlos AK. More practice does not necessarily enhance transfer of learning: evidence and interpretations. Percept Mot Skills. 1999; 89(3 Pt 2): 1161-75.
39. Schmidt RA, Wulf G. Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: implications for training and simulation. Hum Factors. 1997; 39(4): 509-25.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top