Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27832611›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017

Individual differences in implicit motor learning: task specificity in sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning.

Alit Stark-Inbar, Meher Raza, Jordan A Taylor, Richard B Ivry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Implicit adaptation's effect on sensorimotor and motor confidence.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alit Stark-InbarDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California; alit.stark@gmail.com.
Meher RazaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Jordan A TaylorDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.ORCID 0000-0001-9300-1229
Richard B IvryDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Funding

Embodied Decision Making: The Influence of Action Errors on Reinforcement LearningR01NS092079 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI IVRY, RICHARD · 2015 to 2019
$1.7M
A model system to study the interaction of multiple processes for motor learningR01NS084948 · NINDS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI TAYLOR, JORDAN A · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS084948NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS092079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In standard taxonomies, motor skills are typically treated as representative of implicit or procedural memory. We examined two emblematic tasks of implicit motor learning, sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning, asking whether individual differences in learning are correlated between these tasks, as well as how individual differences within each task are related to different performance variables. As a prerequisite, it was essential to establish the reliability of learning measures for each task. Participants were tested twice on a visuomotor adaptation task and on a sequence learning task, either the serial reaction time task or the alternating reaction time task. Learning was evident in all tasks at the group level and reliable at the individual level in visuomotor adaptation and the alternating reaction time task but not in the serial reaction time task. Performance variability was predictive of learning in both domains, yet the relationship was in the opposite direction for adaptation and sequence learning. For the former, faster learning was associated with lower variability, consistent with models of sensorimotor adaptation in which learning rates are sensitive to noise. For the latter, greater learning was associated with higher variability and slower reaction times, factors that may facilitate the spread of activation required to form predictive, sequential associations. Interestingly, learning measures of the different tasks were not correlated. Together, these results oppose a shared process for implicit learning in sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning and provide insight into the factors that account for individual differences in learning within each task domain. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: We investigated individual differences in the ability to implicitly learn motor skills. As a prerequisite, we assessed whether individual differences were reliable across test sessions. We found that two commonly used tasks of implicit learning, visuomotor adaptation and the alternating serial reaction time task, exhibited good test-retest reliability in measures of learning and performance. However, the learning measures did not correlate between the two tasks, arguing against a shared process for implicit motor learning.

Indexed as

IndividualityAdaptation, PhysiologicalAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleMotor SkillsMovementPhotic StimulationReaction TimeSerial LearningYoung Adultadaptationimplicit learningindividual differencesreliabilitysequence learning

Identifiers

PMID27832611
PMCPMC5253399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.