Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?

• Published in: Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 184 - 11
• Main Authors: Schulleri, Katrin H., Feizian, Farbod, Steinböck, Martina, Lee, Dongheui, Johannsen, Leif
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 18.10.2024; BioMed Central Ltd; BMC
• Subjects: Adult; Balance control; Biofeedback; Biofeedback training; Biofeedback, Psychology - methods; Biofeedback, Psychology - physiology; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Biomedicine; Cognition; Cognition - physiology; Cognitive demand; Cognitive interference; Conflict management; Emerging Approaches to Cognitive and Physical Virtual Rehabilitation; Female; Humans; Male; Memory, Short-Term - physiology; Multitasking (Human behavior); Neurology; Neurosciences; Postural Balance - physiology; Rehabilitation Medicine; Touch - physiology; Vibration; Young Adult; Balance control; Biofeedback; Cognitive interference; Cognitive demand
• ISSN: 1743-0003; 1743-0003
• DOI: 10.1186/s12984-024-01476-w

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.