Clinical StudiesLearning spinal manipulation: the importance of augmented feedback relating to various kinetic parameters
Introduction
Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is the cornerstone of the chiropractic profession. Among all conservative therapeutic interventions, spinal manipulation is the most commonly used intervention by chiropractors [1], [2]. In all chiropractic teaching institutions, numerous hours are devoted to learning this complex motor skill, and it is considered an important aspect of chiropractic training. Overall, the goal of SMT is to apply force and moment with specific parameters of direction, amplitude, and speed to a joint [3], [4], [5]. To perform SMT, students must learn to coordinate and control segments when delivering a specific force in a very short period of time [6]. Traditionally, chiropractic techniques are taught by asking students to first learn the theoretical aspects of spinal manipulation. This is followed by instructors demonstrating the skill, and students executing the task. According to their training level, students partially or completely perform this skill. Feedback on performance is often provided by the instructor based on his/her teaching and clinical experience. However, as pointed out by Pringle [7], feedback in practical chiropractic training is delivered without considering the large body of literature on motor learning.
Recently, a few authors have addressed issues relating to chiropractic teaching methods and the effects of various types of augmented feedback. Compared with usual training, augmented feedback generates significant and lasting learning effects [8]. Scaringe et al. used a simulator in a thrusting maneuver with two predetermined force levels [9]. Their findings suggest that this type of simulator (a piezoelectric film embedded in a 1-inch-thick rubber padded bag) is a valuable tool to improve the learning of complex motor skills. Triano et al. examined the issue of developing skilled performance in lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine manipulation [10], [11]. One of their goals was to test a learning strategy that combined rehearsal and quantitative feedback from an instrument measuring the application of axial forces against specific resistance levels. To do so, they measured, using a modified treatment table, the pre- and post-training performance of students while they performed SMT on student colleagues. Their results revealed significant differences between the performances of the feedback group compared with the standard training group, particularly for preload, sagittal, and lateral bend moments. These data were interpreted as supporting training aids to enhance performance and improve learning. In a study in which students were tested and practiced with the “same testing device”, Enebo and Sherwood showed the influence of practice scheduling and type of feedback in learning a high-velocity low-amplitude task with a simulator. The results confirm that variable practice combined with visual feedback was the most efficient combination to improve force production accuracy in a retention task [12].
Few studies have looked at feedback and motor learning in palpation skills [7] and mobilization [13]. Pringle compared the effects of various amounts of verbal feedback to reproduce a targeted force during training and after a retention interval [7]. The results confirmed the guidance hypothesis proposed by Schmidt et al. [14]. Subjects who trained with constant knowledge of result (KR) feedback reduced their errors during practice but manifested poor performance in retention, compared with groups that received intermittent verbal feedback in the training sessions.
In a study by Lee et al. [13], physical therapy students were divided into two groups according to the type of feedback provided in training. One group was taught a spinal mobilization technique in the traditional way (feedback provided by the instructor). The experimental group received visual feedback concerning the applied force and the ideal force for each trial. These results indicated that this type of feedback was associated with a significant improvement in accuracy and consistency of the mobilizing force. Moreover, such differences were present in a retention test conducted 1 week later. The present study focused on the importance of employing current theories of motor learning to increase the retention of motor skills for chiropractic students. As suggested by Triano et al. [10], when learning spinal manipulation, various biomechanical parameters should be targeted individually for specific enhancement. Thus, the goal of the present investigation is to compare the performance of two groups of chiropractic students, one receiving traditional training from experienced instructors, and the other, augmented feedback on specific biomechanical aspects of SMT using an instrumented manikin. A secondary goal of the study is to evaluate if learning procedural manipulative skills with a manikin is as efficient as usual chiropractic training and if some biomechanical aspects of SMT are easier to acquire with this type of training.
Section snippets
Subjects
A total of 31 fourth-year students (mean age 23.8 years, 10 men and 21 women) from the Department of Chiropractic of Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières participated in this study, which was conducted concurrently with their clinical training.
Evaluations
Spinal manipulation parameters were evaluated 1 week before the practice sessions and 1 week after the last practice session.
A manikin used to teach cardiopulmonary reanimation was modified and instrumented with a spring to emulate the resistance offered
Results
Using a t test for independent samples, participant characteristics (Table 1) were compared between the two groups and no significant difference was found (p>.05). Moreover, for all dependent variables, no significant differences were noted at baseline evaluation (p>.05).
Two-way analysis of variance yielded a significant main effect of practice for peak force [F (1, 29)=11.57, p=.002]. The mean (SD) peak forces applied by both groups were 645.8 N (133.9) at baseline and 572.9 N (72.2) at
Discussion
This study was designed to compare the efficiency of standard chiropractic training and augmented feedback training in learning SMT. For peak force, the results indicate a main practice effect with a mean decrease of 72.9 N, which is similar to the trends reported by Triano et al. for thoracic spine manipulations [11]. Thus, all subjects were able to reduce their mean peak force level. This is an interesting outcome that could reflect the ability to modulate force levels with practice according
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated the intrinsic value of an instrument manikin to improve psychomotor skills relating to SMT. The instrumented manikin providing augmented feedback is certainly as valuable as standard training and even more efficient for specific biomechanical parameters of spinal manipulation. Training aids eliminate the risk of negative side effects occurring while students practice repetitive spinal manipulations on one another [25]. However, a manikin cannot recreate the large
References (25)
- et al.
Patient characteristics, practice activities, and one-month outcomes for chronic, recurrent low-back pain treated by chiropractors and family medicine physicians: a practice-based feasibility study
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2000) A survey of practice patterns and the health promotion and prevention attitudes of US chiropractors. Maintenance care: part I
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2000)Neurological effects of the adjustment
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2000)Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: previous theories
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2002)Guidance hypothesis with verbal feedback in learning a palpation skill
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2004)- et al.
The effects of augmented sensory feedback precision on the acquisition and retention of a simulated chiropractic task
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2002) - et al.
Developing skilled performance of lumbar spine manipulation
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2002) - et al.
Quantitative feedback versus standard training for cervical and thoracic manipulation
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2003) - et al.
Experience and practice organization in learning a simulated high-velocity low-amplitude task
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2005) - et al.
Kinetic analysis of expertise in spinal manipulative therapy using an instrumented manikin
J Chiropract Med
(2005)
Three-dimensionality of direct contact forces in chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
The effects of age and feedback on isometric knee extensor force control abilities
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Cited by (55)
Spinal Kinematic Assessment of Chiropractic Side-Posture Adjustments: Development of a Motion Capture System
2022, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsEffects of biomechanical parameters of spinal manipulation: A critical literature review
2022, Journal of Integrative MedicineKinematic consistency in the knee manipulation learning: A comparison between expert and beginner therapists
2021, International Journal of Osteopathic MedicineReaction Force Magnitude and Orientation During Supine Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation: An Exploratory Analysis and Reliability of Preload and Impulse Phase
2020, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsTactile Perception of Pressure and Volitional Thrust Intensity Modulate Spinal Manipulation Dose Characteristics
2019, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsThe Effect of Augmented Feedback and Expertise on Spinal Manipulation Skills: An Experimental Study
2017, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
FDA device/drug status: not applicable.
This study was funded by the Fond Institutionnel de Recherche de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. Nothing of value received from a commercial entity related to this manuscript.