Dataset Information

Finger pressing task data collected with and without post-trial performance feedback.

ABSTRACT: The dataset presented in the article consists of finger forces of participants during a finger pressing task. The finger pressing task involves the production of fingertip forces using Index, Middle, Ring, and Little (I, M, R&L) fingers of the right hand. The participant performed two types of task, namely MVC task and visual occlusion task. The participants completed the Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) task first, where they were instructed to produce maximum possible force from each finger individually and all fingers together. The visually occluded finger pressing task followed the MVC task. In this task, the participant's visual feedback was removed after 8s. There were two conditions in this task, one with post-trial performance feedback (referred to as "epilogue" condition in this manuscript) and another that does not have this post-trial performance feedback (referred to as "no epilogue" condition in this manuscript). The epilogue condition is a particular case of post-trial visual feedback where, at the end of each trial, the performance in that trial is shown to the participant. This was followed by the next trial. Normalization of force levels for visual occlusion tasks was performed for the forces with the participants produced in the MVC task. Fourteen healthy participants were recruited for performing the experiments. For the experiments, they were instructed to produce fingertip forces using four fingers of the right hand with the target line at 15% MVC (15% of the force that they produced in the MVC task). The two visual occlusion conditions had 30 trials each. In both conditions, a single trial lasted 16 s. For the initial 8 s, there is visual feedback, which follows an eight-second visual occlusion period where there is no visual feedback. The dataset consists of three files; the first file has the data of Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) data, the second file has the data for the "without epilogue" condition, and the third file has the data of "epilogue" case.

SUBMITTER: Balamurugan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6997508 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Finger pressing task data collected with and without post-trial performance feedback.

Balamurugan S S Varadhan S K M SKM

Data in brief 20200111

The dataset presented in the article consists of finger forces of participants during a finger pressing task. The finger pressing task involves the production of fingertip forces using Index, Middle, Ring, and Little (I, M, R&L) fingers of the right hand. The participant performed two types of task, namely MVC task and visual occlusion task. The participants completed the Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) task first, where they were instructed to produce maximum possible force from each finger ...[more]

PMID: 32025541

Similar Datasets

Project description:The influence of feedback on performance is a topic of ongoing debate, with some previous studies finding it to be ineffective, while others have discovered that it can be helpful or harmful. One possible reason for these inconsistent results may be that feedback can create a conflict between a person's beliefs and the sensory information they receive. In the present study, we used a Vernier discrimination task to examine the influence of biased feedback on performance, as this type of feedback is most likely to create conflict. Biased feedback refers to feedback that does not align with the subjects' choices. The Vernier discrimination task is a type of psychophysical task that is often used to measure an individual's ability to perceive differences in the position or orientation of two visual stimuli. The task involves presenting two stimuli, one of which is slightly offset from the other, and asking the individual to determine the direction and magnitude of the offset. In Experiment 1, feedback was provided after each trial using large-offset verniers as guidance. The large-offset verniers always received correct feedback, but the small and medium-offset verniers might receive biased feedback. In Experiment 2, feedback was provided after each block of eight verniers. In Experiment 3, we removed the large offset vernier to investigate the influence of block feedback on the signal and noise. The results showed that the accuracy for the target vernier decreased due to biased feedback in both the trial feedback (Experiment 1) and the block feedback (Experiment 2). However, in Experiments 1 and 2, performance improved when feedback was absent. Moreover, if the difference between the two types of stimuli is great, the individual will engage in encoding learning rather than decision learning (Experiments 1 and 2). If the discrimination between the two types of stimuli is low, an individual's ability to discriminate noise is more vulnerable to the influence of biased feedback than the ability to discriminate the signal (Experiment 3). These results are discussed in relation to the mechanism of biased feedback, the process of encoding learning, the monitoring of internal feedback, and the generalization of false decisions.

Dataset Information

Finger pressing task data collected with and without post-trial performance feedback.

Publications

Finger pressing task data collected with and without post-trial performance feedback.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets