IM eNews

Dr. McGrew just posted a blog on Tick Tock Brain Talk that concerns very interesting and relevant research to IM and it's clinical application with regard to how feedback for timing is provided (auditory feedback alone - vs - auditory + visual feedback). This is interesting information and further validates the power of IM. When people ask how IM is different from other games, technologies, & neurofeedback programs (i.e., Wii, Dance Dance Revolution (DDR)) I always tell them that whereas some other programs do tap into temporal processing, the process whereby this occurs can be somewhat random and chaotic (DDR), and IM is the only program that provides real-time feedback for millisecond and interval timing in the brain, the seat of temporal processing for so many of our cognitive-communicative, sensory, motor, and behavioral skills. I then refer these individuals to read The Neural Basis of Temporal Processing (Mauk & Buonomano, 2004) for a better understanding of just how critical timing is to all of our human capabilities and what can go awry when temporal processing is deficient -- but most importantly, what level of timing is most critical for the areas of performance we deal with clinically (speech, language, cognition, motor, sensory)... this happens to be millisecond and interval timing levels (right where the IM is providing critical real-time feedback within a cognitively and motorically engaging activity - ideal for neural reorganization!!) Enjoy this post.

In IAP Research Report # 9 (Brain rhythm treatment efficacy: Can we fine-tune our brain clocks?), it was concluded (after reviewing 23 studies) that "rhythm-based mental-timing treatments have merit for clinical use and warrant increased clinical use and research attention." Additionally, it was concluded that:

Positive treatment outcomes were reported for four forms of rhythm-based treatment. Positive outcomes were also observed for normal subjects and, more importantly, across a variety of clinical disorders (e.g., aphasia, apraxia, coordination/movement disorders, TBI, CP, Parkinson’s disease, stroke/CVA, Down’s syndrome, ADHD)

Most rhythm-based brain-based interventions (the RAS, AOS-RRT and SMT treatment studies) all employed some form of auditory-based metronome to pace or cue the subjects targeted rhythmic behavior.

External metronome-based rhythm tools (tapping to a beat, metronome-based rhythmic pacing, rhythmic-cuing via timed pulses/beats) is a central tool to improving temporal processing and mental-timing.

In this context, I was excited to see the recent article by Wing, Doumas & Welchman (2010)--the abstract of the study which I posted this past week. Wing is the Wing of the Wing-Kristofferson two-level model of rhythm-based synchronization. Thus, although the current study only focused on n=8 subjects, the research questions, methodology, and quality of research is based on a lengthy program of research and theorizing by Wing and associates. In this context, I find their findings worthy of this special blog post. A copy of the article can be viewed by clicking here.

As we all know (from reading this blog), synchronization is a crucial aspect of many forms of skilled human performance. In many everyday and complex behaviors our CNS is often bombarded by multiple forms of sensory stimuli from which our brain seeks information to fine tune synchronization of time-dependent behaviors. The current Wing study focused on whether synchronization of behaviors occurs best under a single feedback modality (e.g., auditory cues only) or when the CNS must process similar timing feedback from two sensory modalities concurrently (e.g., auditory and visual; auditory and haptic).

Common sense suggests that the performance would probably be best when the brain only needs to focus on one form of time-based synchronization feedback (e.g., auditory only). But, research suggests this is not the case. The literature reviewed in the article, as well as the specific study reported (looking at synchronization of behavior under single or multiple sensory feedback conditions), favors a cue combination model of synchronization. Whether auditory+visual synchronization feedback or auditory+haptic feedback, the brain, although tending to favor and weight the importance of one modality over the other (e.g., auditory performance feedback tends to dominate over visual when provided concurrently), appears to benefit from having more than one form of feedback. Apparently the CNS combines feedback from different senses in a differential weighting algorithm (i.e., pays attention to one form of feedback more and gives it more weight in adjusting performance) which increases the precision of synchronization of behaviors.

Although replication is needed, this study suggests that rhythm-based mental timing or synchronization treatments (e.g., Interactive Metronome; see conflict of interest notice) may be most effective when multisensory feedback is provided to subjects...and not just a single form of feedback. Of course, there will always be individual differences and some individuals may benefit more from a single form of feedback (e.g., auditory beeps only). Research that would identify individuals who do not benefit from the advantages of multisensory feedback would be of interest. My only criticism of this study is the failure of the authors to hypothesize what occurs at the neurological level when multisensory cue feedback is provided---i.e., why does it improve performance?

For now...it appears that "more is better."

Helpful Tools

Brain rhythm treatment effectiveness: More complex multisensory synchronization may be better?

Brain rhythm treatment effectiveness: More complex multisensory synchronization may be better?