Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function

Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function View ORCID Profile Leoni Viola Winter , View ORCID Profile Jacquelyn VL Sertic , View ORCID Profile Jürgen Konczak doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25.25326388 Leoni Viola Winter 1 Human Sensorimotor Control Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States 2 Center for Clinical Movement Science, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Leoni Viola Winter For correspondence: vwinter{at}umn.edu Jacquelyn VL Sertic 2 Center for Clinical Movement Science, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States 3 Brains in Motion Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota , MN, USA 4 Center for Applied & Transitional Sensory Science, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Jacquelyn VL Sertic Jürgen Konczak 1 Human Sensorimotor Control Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States 2 Center for Clinical Movement Science, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Jürgen Konczak Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Dyad practice of complex motor skills, characterized by two learners alternating between physical and observational practice, can yield better motor outcomes and reduce practice time compared to physical practice alone. It is unknown if the superior effects of dyad practice on motor learning extend to proprioceptive learning. Forty-two healthy participants (18–35 years) were randomized into three groups (n=14 each): Dyad practice, physical practice with rest (PP-rest), and physical practice without rest (PP-no rest). Participants practiced a 2 degree-of-freedom gamified wrist movement task for 20 minutes using a custom-made wrist robotic device. Wrist position sense acuity was assessed before (baseline) and 24 hours after the end of training (retention), using the Just-noticeable-difference (JND) threshold and Uncertainty. Only the PP-no rest group exhibited significantly lower JND thresholds at retention compared to baseline ( t (13)=2.44; p = 0.03, Hedge’s g =0.70). There were no differences in position sense Uncertainty within or between groups. Dyad practice may yield superior gains in motor performance, but this did not translate into comparable gains in proprioceptive acuity. A possible explanation for these findings is that the recruitment of explicit motor learning mechanisms during dyad motor skill practice does not enhance the implicit learning mechanisms underlying proprioceptive learning. Highlights Dyad practice (DP) may yield superior motor gains compared to physical practice DP does not yield superior proprioceptive gains compared to physical practice Intensive physical practice yields the largest gains in position sense acuity Introduction Motor and proprioceptive learning are closely coupled, such that motor learning enhances proprioceptive function and vice versa ( Borich et al., 2015 ; Ostry et al., 2010 ). Numerous studies show that sensorimotor training induces both motor performance and proprioceptive gains (for reviews see Aman et al., 2015 ; Seo et al., 2023 ; Winter et al., 2022 ). For example, training of a visuomotor task in a wrist robotic environment can improve performance as well as proprioceptive acuity in neurologically healthy people and those presenting with chronic stroke or Parkinson’s disease ( Elangovan et al., 2017 , 2018 , 2019 ). The reciprocal neuroanatomical connections between motor and somatosensory cortical areas are well delineated ( Ostry & Gribble, 2016 ). Substantial empirical evidence shows that motor learning leads to altered functional connectivity beyond motor cortical areas. For example, learning to adapt to unknown force fields while executing goal-directed arm movements leads to electrophysiological changes in networks involved in the processing of somatosensory afferents such as the somatosensory cortex ( Vahdat et al., 2011 ). Conversely, applying continuous theta-burst magnetic stimulation before force-field training to disrupt activity in the primary somatosensory cortex impairs adaptive motor learning and retention ( Darainy et al., 2023 ). In addition to changes in somatosensory networks following motor adaptation, research also shows that sensory learning induces changes in the motor areas of the brain, including increased motor evoked potentials and increased activity in the motor cortex ( Ostry & Gribble, 2016 ). Dyad practice is a motor learning paradigm in which individuals train in pairs (dyads) and alternate between physical training and observing the practice of the other member of the dyad. Empirical research shows that dyads perform at a similar or superior level compared to individuals who only practice physically in a variety of complex motor tasks, including visuomotor tasks such as flight simulation ( Arthur et al., 1997 ; Shebilske et al., 1998 ) and a car racing game ( Winter et al., 2024 ), microsurgery ( Bjerrum et al., 2014 ), cup stacking ( Granados & Wulf, 2007 ), balance training ( Shea et al., 1999 ), trajectory learning ( Panzer et al., 2019 ), and ultrasound simulation ( Tolsgaard et al., 2015 ). Notably, dyad practice has received significant attention as a tool in motor task learning that requires costly equipment – such as microsurgery ( Bjerrum et al., 2014 ), flight simulation ( Shebilske et al., 1998 ), and simulation-based ultrasound training ( Tolsgaard et al., 2015 ) – making dyad practice a valuable technique for complex motor skill learning in environments with scarce resources. The alternation between physical practice and observation may afford unique learning opportunities by accessing three distinct processes: 1) motor control processes related to movement execution (e.g. error correction, parameterization), 2) cognitive processes related to the movement task (e.g. error detection, information about correct movement pattern) ( Shea et al., 2000 ), and 3) cognitive processes unique to action observation (e.g., detecting effective learning strategies and techniques ( Panzer et al., 2019 ). We recently assessed the effects of dyad practice on motor performance in a gamified exercise using a wrist robotic device ( Winter et al., 2024 ). The results show that the additional observational practice in the dyad practice group led to superior motor performance immediately after training and after a 24-hour retention period compared to groups that practiced physically only. However, the effects of dyad practice on proprioceptive learning are unknown. Considering the motor skill learning benefits of dyad practice and given that proprioceptive and motor learning mechanisms are closely linked, the present study aimed to determine the effects of dyad practice on proprioceptive function. This report extends previous data on the effects of dyad practice on motor performance in a controlled, wrist-robotic environment ( Winter et al., 2024 ) by providing data on the learning-related proprioceptive changes in wrist position sense. Methods Participants Forty-two individuals (32 female, age 27.1 (SD 1.6) years) participated in the study. Inclusion criteria were: (1) age between 18-35 years, (2) right handedness, and (3) fluency in the English language. Individuals were excluded if they had any of the following: (1) uncorrected visual impairment, (2) neurological or physical impairment of the right upper extremity, or (3) speech pathology that impairs ability to communicate. All participants provided a verbal medical history to determine eligibility. Handedness was confirmed using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory ( Oldfield, 1971 ). Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation in the study. The experimental protocol was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (STUDY00012759). Device and training procedure Detailed information about the training device, training procedure and motor assessment was published previously ( Winter et al., 2024 ). Briefly, participants practiced a gamified motor task using a custom-made wrist-robotic device ( Error! Reference source not found. A) . The motor task, a classic single player virtual car racing game, consisted of a 2 degree-of-freedom (DoF) task in which wrist flexion/extension and forearm pronation/supination were coupled to the movement of the car on the screen (Error! Reference source not found. B ). All participants completed 20 physical practice trials of 60 seconds each on day 1 and returned for a retention test on day 2, approximately 24 hours after the end of training, to perform five trials of the same gamified exercise. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups (each n = 14): 1) dyad practice ( DP ), 2) physical practice only with rest ( PP-rest ), or 3) physical practice only without rest ( PP-no rest ). Each DP participant was paired with one other DP participant, resulting in seven training dyads. All participants were informed that the learning objective of the gamified exercise was to finish the game as fast as possible, and that they were required to keep the virtual car on the road as much as they could. Dyads were further instructed to cooperatively learn the task with their learning partner and to “get better together by helping each other out”. They alternated between physical and observational practice. Between trials, DP participants were encouraged to engage in an inter-trial dialog lasting 30 seconds, in which they could discuss relevant strategies or observations with their practice partner. Participants in the other two groups only practiced physically. Instead of engaging in observational practice, PP-rest rested for 90 seconds between trials to mimic the overall practice time of the DP group. PP-no rest performed all 20 trials consecutively without rest. PP-no rest , therefore, had a shorter overall practice period than DP and PP-rest . Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1: Experimental devices for motor training (A and B) and proprioceptive assessment (C and D) : Wrist robotic device and gamified exercise (modified from Winter et al., 2024 ) and wrist manipulandum (modified from Tseng et al., 2018 ). A) Close-up of the wrist robotic device. B) Participant during practice of the gamified exercise. The goal was to finish the course as fast as possible. C) The wrist manipulandum was used for proprioceptive assessment. Adjustable handles allowed accommodating for different hand size. D) A pegboard panel allowed inserting a metal pin into a hole that served as a mechanical stop for a distinct reference position. Evaluation of proprioceptive performance improvement Wrist joint position sense acuity was measured using a custom-built passive motion manipulandum ( Tseng et al., 2018 ) that rotates the wrist in the medio-lateral plane (flexion and extension) (Error! Reference source not found. C ). An optical encoder with a spatial resolution of 0.036° (U.S. Digital H6), housed at the rotating axis of the lever arm, recorded angular position of the wrist at a sampling rate of 42 Hz. To allow for the testing of distinct joint positions across the joint range of motion, the device has a pegboard with holes in a semicircular arrangement. By inserting a metal pin, researchers could select a precise standard position from 140 different positions across 0° to 70° flexion in 0.5° increments (Error! Reference source not found. D ). During testing, the participants’ forearm was supported and a handle placed in the participants’ palm. Wrist joint position sense acuity was measured before the motor task training on day 1 ( baseline ) and after the five motor retention trials on day 2 ( retention ). During the proprioceptive assessment, participants wore opaque glasses to block visual cues and wore headphones playing pink noise to block auditory cues. The researcher manually moved the participant’s hand from a neutral position to one of two positions either at 10° wrist flexion ( standard ) or a flexed position that was always <10° ( comparison) . This position was held for 2 seconds, then the wrist was rotated back to the starting position. Subsequently, the hand was moved to a different position (see Error! Reference source not found. A for schematic demonstration). Presentation order of the standard and comparison stimuli was randomized. The handle was rotated at a velocity of 6 degrees/second. After both movements were complete, the participant indicated verbally which movement was further from the starting position ( first or second ). Based on the response under a forced-choice paradigm, an adaptive psi-marginal algorithm used the correctness of the previous response and the previous stimulus size to select the next comparison stimulus ( Prins, 2013 ). Each test was composed of 20 trials. One break was provided after 10 trials. Error! Reference source not found. B displays exemplary results from one participant over 20 trials. After the completion of the test, a logistic-Weibull function was fitted to the stimulus size difference between the comparison and reference position and the corresponding percentage of correct responses ( Error! Reference source not found. C) . Based on the fitted function, two outcome measures were calculated: (1) Just-noticeable-difference (JND) threshold and (2) Uncertainty . The JND threshold is a measure of position sense bias, i.e., the systematic error when perceiving joint position sense. JND threshold is defined as the stimulus size at which the participant could correctly perceive their wrist position with 75% accuracy. Smaller JND thresholds indicate higher position sense acuity. The Uncertainty is measured as the slope of the fitted function at the JND threshold. Uncertainty is a measure of position sense precision, i.e., the random error. It expresses the consistency of a participant’s response when repeatedly experiencing a specific joint position. A larger value of Uncertainty indicates a higher position sense acuity. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. Proprioceptive testing. A) Illustration of a single trial of wrist position sense testing. B) Exemplary data of participant responses at each stimulus size over 20 trials. C) Percentage of correct responses at the presented stimulus sizes. Dots are the stimulus sizes presented in B . A logistic-Weibull function is fitted to the data. JND threshold is the stimulus size where the participant was predicted to have a 75% correct response rate based on the fitted function. The steepness of the curve at the JND threshold is the Uncertainty The reason for assessing proprioception at baseline and retention, rather than at baseline and immediately post-training was two-fold: First, we wanted to avoid mental fatigue for participants on the first day of the study. Second, previous research shows that somatosensory training effects remain stable for several days after training ( Cuppone et al., 2018 ). Therefore, participants were assessed after a 24 hour retention period, which ensured that the best possible data was available. Statistical analysis The distribution for all variables were examined for normality using Shapiro-Wilk’s test of normality. JND threshold was normally distributed for all groups but Uncertainty was not normally distributed in the DP group. Consequently, parametric analyses were performed for JND threshold, and non-parametric analyses were performed for Uncertainty. A simple mixed method analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to identify main effects of time ( baseline, retention ) and group ( DP, PP-rest, PP-no rest ). Post-hoc t -tests were used to identify individual group differences from baseline to retention . Kruskal-Wallis H tests were performed to determine between-group differences in Uncertainty at baseline and retention . Post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify individual group differences from baseline to retention . Hedge’s g effect sizes were calculated for within-group and between-group differences for both JND threshold and Uncertainty . The significance level for all tests was set to α = 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using MATLAB version 2023b (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). Results The associated motor performance data are published in detail elsewhere ( Winter et al., 2024 ). Briefly, all groups improved their motor performance from baseline to the end of training, while dyads showed larger performance gains than both PP groups. Motor gains remained larger for dyads after a 24-h retention period, compared to the two PP groups. Practice related changes in position sense bias Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the JND threshold at baseline and retention for the three groups: PP-no rest , PP-rest , and DP. Baseline and retention mean JND thresholds were 1.4° and 1.1° for the PP-no rest group, 1.6° and 1.3° for the PP-rest group, and 1.4° and 1.3° for the DP group, respectively (see Table 1 , Error! Reference source not found. A ). Simple mixed method ANOVA revealed significant main effect of time ( F (1,39) =10.06; p =0.003, η²=0.21) and no group effect ( F (2,39) =0.53; p =0.59, η²=0.03). For the PP-no rest group, position sense bias at retention improved by 20% compared to baseline ( t (13)=2.44; p = 0.03, p = 0.03, Hedge’s g = 0.70). Ten of the 14 PP-no rest participants demonstrated higher proprioceptive acuity at retention than at baseline (Error! Reference source not found. B ). That is, 71% of participants showed improvements in wrist joint position sense bias 24 hours after practicing the gamified exercise. Only considering responders, participants in the PP-no rest group improved their performance by 31%, on average. In contrast, differences in JND threshold between baseline and retention were not statistically significant for the PP-rest and the DP group. However, it is noteworthy that 10 PP-rest participants (71%) and eight DP participants (57%) showed improvements in JND threshold at retention . Considering only individuals who improved their performance, responders showed a reduction in JND threshold by 30% and 26% for the PP-rest and the DP groups, respectively. Overall, 28/42 (66%) of participants across all three practice groups exhibited a reduction in JND threshold at retention relative to baseline. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1. Summary statistics of JND threshold and Uncertainty at baseline and retention for each practice group. Effect sizes for within-group and between-group effects are expressed by Hedge’s g. Values in parentheses represent the standard deviation (SD) for JND threshold, and interquartile ranges (IQR) for Uncertainty . PP-no rest : physical practice group with no rest between trials; PP-rest : physical practice group with rest between trials; DP : dyad practice group. Practice related changes in position sense precision Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the Uncertainty measured by the steepness of the log-Weibull function at baseline and retention for each group. At baseline and retention , the median Uncertainty was 0.9 and 1 percent/degree for the PP-no rest group, 1.0 and 0.9 percent/degree in the PP-rest group, and 0.9 percent/degree for both baseline and retention in the DP group, respectively ( Table 1 , Error! Reference source not found. A ). Nine PP-no rest participants (64%), five PP-rest participants (36%), and seven DP participants (50%) demonstrated smaller Uncertainty at retention than at baseline (Error! Reference source not found. B ). However, changes were not statistically significant for any of the within-and between-group comparisons. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3. JND wrist position sense thresholds at baseline and retention . Individual participant performance is shown as points on both A and B. A) JND threshold at baseline and 24-hr retention for each group. Significant between-group differences at retention are indicated by an asterisk. Whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles. Participants are represented as circles and connected by lines to indicate individual change from baseline to retention . Dark grey points indicate higher proprioceptive acuity at retention than baseline, whereas light grey points represent lower acuity after the intervention. B) Comparison of JND threshold at baseline and at retention for each participant in each group. The dashed diagonal line represents the line of equality . Participants with improved JND threshold at retention (higher acuity) fall below the line of equality. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4. Wrist position sense Uncertainty at baseline and retention . A) Uncertainty at baseline and 24-hr retention for each group. Whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles. Participants are represented as circles and connected by lines, which show their change from baseline to retention . Dark grey points indicate higher proprioceptive acuity at retention than baseline . Light grey points represent lower wrist proprioceptive acuity at retention than baseline . B) Comparison of Uncertainty at baseline and at retention for each participant in each group. The dashed line represents the line of equality (diagonal). Participants with improved Uncertainty at retention (higher acuity) are above the line of equality. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the effects of dyad practice on proprioceptive performance. The main results were threefold: First, on a group level, only the physical practice group with no rest interval exhibited a significantly lower mean JND position sense threshold 24 hours after training. Second, across the three practice groups, the majority of participants (66%) showed reduced position sense JND thresholds at retention. Third, Uncertainty, representing a measure of precision or random error when judging position differences across repeated trials, did not differ across practice groups. Dyad sensorimotor practice did not lead to superior proprioceptive gains The study findings show that with identical amounts of physical practice in all groups, additional observational practice does not lead to superior proprioceptive acuity in dyads. To understand why dyad practice during the acquisition of complex motor skills yields additional benefits in motor performance and learning economy, but has no discernible influence on proprioceptive learning, it is useful to consider the learning mechanisms and the underlying neural networks associated with motor and proprioceptive learning. Empirical research in human and non-human primates suggests that complex motor skill learning typically involves two distinct learning mechanisms: implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) learning. Various forms of motor learning such as adaptation, conditioning and skill acquisition represent implicit or procedural learning and activates distinct brain areas including the cerebellum, basal ganglia, sensorimotor cortex, amygdala ( Squire & Zola, 1996 ; Yang & Li, 2012 ). In contrast, explicit learning and specifically observational learning activates networks in the medial temporal lobe, hippocampus and lateral prefrontal cortex ( Kang et al., 2020 ; Squire & Zola, 1996 ). Dyad practice engages both explicit and implicit learning networks. That is, the physical training portion during dyad practice relies on the same implicit learning networks that are known to be active during motor learning. Consequently, the dyad learners in this study, who trained the same amount as the other two physical practice groups, showed similar effects on proprioceptive function. The additional activation of explicit learning networks in the dyad learning group likely did not enhance short-term somatosensory memory formation that would become manifest as higher position sense acuity. Higher physical practice intensity benefits proprioceptive performance The more consistent and larger proprioceptive gains in the PP-no rest group indicate that participants in this group benefitted from more intense, non-interupted physical practice, compared to the PP-rest and the DP groups. That is, despite having practiced the same amount, the PP-no rest group had a higher training intensity since participants in this group did not rest in between trials. It has long been established that spaced practice (i.e., physical practice that is distributed over a longer period of time) leads to better motor outcomes than when individuals perform all training trials continuously ( Donovan & Radosevich, 1999 ; Shea et al., 2000 ). Our results suggest, however, that higher intensity had a positive effect on proprioceptive performance. While consensus on optimal dosage of proprioceptive training is lacking, higher training intensity may be required in dyad practice to elicit larger proprioceptive gains. Indeed, it would be misleading to say that DP did not lead to proprioceptive gains, when in fact, a majority of DP participants did improve their position sense bias, measured by JND threshold and half of DP participants improved their position sense precision, measured by Uncertainty . However, it can be concluded that the additional observational practice in the DP group was unable to elicit additional proprioceptive improvement, compared to the PP-rest group, which practiced at the same level of physical intensity as the DP group. In summary, our results show that despite the close relationship between proprioceptive and motor learning, the unique explicit learning opportunities afforded by dyad practice do not benefit proprioceptive performance. Limitations Participants trained a 2-DoF motor task (wrist flexion/extension; forearm supination/pronation), but proprioceptive performance was only assessed for the wrist DoF. Due to the nature of the task, participants were not constrained when and what DoF to use during practice. Therefore, it is possible that different amounts of wrist vs. forearm use across participants could have induced inter-individual differences in our measures of proprioceptive acuity. However, we have no indication that the dyad group was biased, that is, its participants systematically used a different DoF. Participants’ wrist proprioception was not assessed directly after training but rather, after a 24-hour retention period. It is noteworthy that proprioceptive assessments require active focus by the participant. We aimed to avoid mental fatigue, due to the length of the experiment, that may have negatively affected the data quality of the second proprioceptive assessment. Simultaneously, there is compelling evidence that somatosensory training effects remain stable over several days after the end of training ( Cuppone et al., 2018 ). That is, it is unlikely that training gains were lost during the retention period. Conclusion Dyad practice is effective in improving motor performance by affording unique learning opportunities that benefit learners during complex motor task acquisition. The additional interspersed observational practice allows individuals to develop a cognitive framework of the task, therefore leading to larger practice effects than physical practice only. However, dyad practice is not superior in improving proprioceptive performance, compared to physical practice alone. Intensive physical practice without rest intervals between trials resulted in the largest gains in proprioceptive performance. Therefore, more intense practice may be required for proprioceptive performance changes, than was present in the DP and PP-rest groups. The lack of superior proprioceptive performance in the DP group suggests that explicit knowledge of the appropriate movement pattern required to perform the motor task does not directly translate into larger gains in proprioceptive acuity. While the explicit information gathered through observational practice clearly benefits motor performance ( Winter et al., 2024 ), the present results indicate that additional observational practice likely does not excite relevant networks involved in the formation of proprioceptive memory. Funding This research was supported by U.S. National Science Foundation IIP 1919036 PFI-TT: A robotic device for the physical therapy of wrist/hand function award to JK. Role of the funding source: The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study. Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Acknowledgements We thank Naveen Elangovan, Daniel Sousa and Reuben Gardos Reid for their technical support and expertise with the wrist robot, and Shima Amini and Jason Kang for their help with data collection. We are thankful to the volunteers for their participation in the study. Abbreviations DoF Degree-of-freedom DP Dyad practice JND Just-Noticeable-Difference PP-no rest Physical practice only without rest PP-rest Physical practice only with rest References ↵ Aman , J. E. , Elangovan , N. , Yeh , I.-L. , & Konczak , J . ( 2015 ). The effectiveness of proprioceptive training for improving motor function: A systematic review . Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 8 ( JAN ). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01075 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Arthur , W. , Day , E. A. , Bennett , W. , McNelly , T. L. , & Jordan , J. A . ( 1997 ). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill . Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 ( 5 ), 783 – 791 . doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.783 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Bjerrum , A. S. , Eika , B. , Charles , P. , & Hilberg , O . ( 2014 ). Dyad practice is efficient practice: A randomised bronchoscopy simulation study . Medical Education , 48 ( 7 ), 705 – 712 . doi: 10.1111/medu.12398 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Borich , M. R. , Brodie , S. M. , Gray , W. A. , Ionta , S. , & Boyd , L. A . ( 2015 ). Understanding the role of the primary somatosensory cortex: Opportunities for rehabilitation . Neuropsychologia , 79 , 246 – 255 . doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.007 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Cuppone , A. V. , Semprini , M. , & Konczak , J . ( 2018 ). Consolidation of human somatosensory memory during motor learning . Behavioural Brain Research , 347 , 184 – 192 . doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.03.013 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Darainy , M. , Manning , T. F. , & Ostry , D. J . ( 2023 ). Disruption of somatosensory cortex impairs motor learning and retention . Journal of Neurophysiology , 130 ( 6 ), 1521 – 1528 . doi: 10.1152/jn.00231.2023 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Donovan , J. J. , & Radosevich , D. J . ( 1999 ). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t . Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 ( 5 ), 795 – 805 . OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Elangovan , N. , Cappello , L. , Masia , L. , Aman , J. , & Konczak , J . ( 2017 ). A robot-aided visuo-motor training that improves proprioception and spatial accuracy of untrained movement . Scientific Reports , 7 ( 1 ), 17054 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16704-8 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Elangovan , N. , Tuite , P. J. , & Konczak , J . ( 2018 ). Somatosensory Training Improves Proprioception and Untrained Motor Function in Parkinson’s Disease . Frontiers in Neurology , 9 (December). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01053 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Elangovan , N. , Yeh , I. L. , Holst-Wolf , J. , & Konczak , J . ( 2019 ). A robot-assisted sensorimotor training program can improve proprioception and motor function in stroke survivors . IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics , 2019 -June , 660–664. doi: 10.1109/ICORR.2019.8779409 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Granados , C. , & Wulf , G . ( 2007 ). Enhancing motor learning through dyad practice: Contributions of observation and dialogue . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 78 ( 3 ), 197 – 203 . doi: 10.1080/02701367.2007.10599417 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Kang , W. , Pineda Hernández , S. , & Mei , J . ( 2020 ). Neural Mechanisms of Observational Learning: A Neural Working Model . Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 14 , 609312 . doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.609312 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Oldfield , R. C . ( 1971 ). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory . Neuropsychologia , 9 ( 1 ), 97 – 113 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Ostry , D. J. , Darainy , M. , Mattar , A. A. G. , Wong , J. , & Gribble , P. L . ( 2010 ). Somatosensory plasticity and motor learning . Journal of Neuroscience , 30 ( 15 ), 5384 – 5393 . doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4571-09.2010 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Ostry , D. J. , & Gribble , P. L . ( 2016 ). Sensory Plasticity in Human Motor Learning . Trends in Neurosciences , 39 ( 2 ), 114 – 123 . doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.12.006 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Panzer , S. , Haab , T. , Massing , M. , Pfeifer , C. , & Shea , C. H . ( 2019 ). Dyad training protocols and the development of a motor sequence representation . Acta Psychologica , 201 ( August ), 102947 . doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102947 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Prins , N . ( 2013 ). The psi-marginal adaptive method: How to give nuisance parameters the attention they deserve (no more, no less) . Journal of Vision , 13 ( 7 ), Article 7. doi: 10.1167/13.7.3 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Seo , H. G. , Yun , S. J. , Farrens , A. J. , Johnson , C. A. , & Reinkensmeyer , D. J . ( 2023 ). A Systematic Review of the Learning Dynamics of Proprioception Training: Specificity, Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer . Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair , 37 ( 10 ), 744 – 757 . doi: 10.1177/15459683231207354 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Shea , C. H. , Lai , Q. , Black , C. , & Park , J.-H . ( 2000 ). Spacing practice sessions across days benefits the learning of motor skills . Human Movement Science , 19 ( 5 ), 737 – 760 . doi: 10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00021-X OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Shea , C. H. , Whitacre , C. , & Wulf , G . ( 1999 ). Enhancing training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of dyad training . Journal of Motor Behavior , 31 ( 2 ), 119 – 125 . doi: 10.1080/00222899909600983 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Shebilske , W. L. , Jordan , J. A. , Goettl , B. P. , & Paulus , L. E . ( 1998 ). Observation versus hands-on practice of complex skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams . Human Factors , 40 ( 4 ), 525 – 540 . doi: 10.1518/001872098779649319 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Squire , L. R. , & Zola , S. M . ( 1996 ). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 93 ( 24 ), 13515 – 13522 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.24.13515 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Tolsgaard , M. G. , Madsen , M. E. , Ringsted , C. , Oxlund , B. S. , Oldenburg , A. , Sorensen , J. L. , Ottesen , B. , & Tabor , A . ( 2015 ). The effect of dyad versus individual simulation-based ultrasound training on skills transfer . Medical Education , 49 ( 3 ), 286 – 295 . doi: 10.1111/medu.12624 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tseng , Y.-T. , Tsai , C.-L. , Chen , F.-C. , & Konczak , J . ( 2018 ). Wrist position sense acuity and its relation to motor dysfunction in children with developmental coordination disorder . Neuroscience Letters , 674 , 106 – 111 . doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.03.031 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Vahdat , S. , Darainy , M. , Milner , T. E. , & Ostry , D. J . ( 2011 ). Functionally specific changes in resting-state sensorimotor networks after motor learning . The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience , 31 ( 47 ), 16907 – 16915 . doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2737-11.2011 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Winter , L. V. , Huang , Q. , Sertic , J. V. L. , & Konczak , J . ( 2022 ). The Effectiveness of Proprioceptive Training for Improving Motor Performance and Motor Dysfunction: A Systematic Review . Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences , 3 ( April ). doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.830166 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Winter , L. V. , Panzer , S. , & Konczak , J . ( 2024 ). Dyad motor learning in a wrist-robotic environment: Learning together is better than learning alone . Human Movement Science , 93 , 103172 . doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2023.103172 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Yang , J. , & Li , P . ( 2012 ). Brain networks of explicit and implicit learning . PloS One , 7 ( 8 ), e42993 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042993 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted April 28, 2025. Download PDF Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function Leoni Viola Winter , Jacquelyn VL Sertic , Jürgen Konczak medRxiv 2025.04.25.25326388; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25.25326388 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Effects of dyad motor practice on proprioceptive function Leoni Viola Winter , Jacquelyn VL Sertic , Jürgen Konczak medRxiv 2025.04.25.25326388; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25.25326388 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Neurology Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (568) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (300) Cardiovascular Medicine (4435) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (444) Dermatology (382) Emergency Medicine (608) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1509) Epidemiology (15228) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1124) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6598) Geriatric Medicine (668) Health Economics (997) Health Informatics (4536) Health Policy (1368) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1613) Hematology (540) HIV/AIDS (1264) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15916) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (623) Medical Ethics (146) Nephrology (667) Neurology (6599) Nursing (346) Nutrition (998) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1144) Occupational and Environmental Health (957) Oncology (3332) Ophthalmology (974) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (436) Palliative Medicine (130) Pathology (663) Pediatrics (1693) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (691) Primary Care Research (711) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5447) Public and Global Health (9231) Radiology and Imaging (2198) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1370) Respiratory Medicine (1196) Rheumatology (593) Sexual and Reproductive Health (712) Sports Medicine (530) Surgery (712) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (289) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a00590e8ddf209d6',t:'MTc3OTU1NTA5Mw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();