correlational
Analysis v1
33
Pro
0
Against

When healthy people move their arm with a robot using just one kind of feedback (like seeing a target or feeling resistance), they make more mistakes and use more muscle effort than when they get both kinds of feedback at once.

Scientific Claim

In healthy adults, unilateral active training with single-modality visual or force feedback is associated with higher tracking error (22.5 ± 3.40 mm) and greater muscle activation (0.78 ± 0.12) than training with combined visual-force feedback (TE: 6.6 ± 0.8 mm; activation: 0.53 ± 0.13) during circular tasks, indicating that simpler feedback may increase effort and error but not necessarily improve accuracy.

Original Statement

UAT with single-modality feedback (visual/force) enabled higher TE (22.5 ± 3.40 mm) and active participation (0.78 ± 0.12) when compared with UAT with multi-modality (visual-force) feedback (TE: 6.6 ± 0.8 mm; activation level: 0.53 ± 0.13) (p < 0.01).

Evidence Quality Assessment

Claim Status

overstated

Study Design Support

Design supports claim

Appropriate Language Strength

association

Can only show association/correlation

Assessment Explanation

The authors use 'enabled higher' implying causation, but the study design (observational, healthy subjects) only supports association. The verb should reflect correlation, not effect.

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (1)

33

When people practiced moving their arm with just one type of feedback (like only seeing a screen), they made more mistakes and used more muscle effort than when they got both visual and force feedback together — meaning two types of help made them move better and easier.

Contradicting (0)

0
No contradicting evidence found