ArticleScientific reports2017
Superior non-specific motor learning in the blind.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Pilot Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2022Trial
- Vision Fine-Tunes Predictions of Bimanual Self-Touch.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Implicit sequence learning using auditory cues leads to modality-specific representations.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Static magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex impairs online but not offline motor sequence learning.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well established that blindness induces changes in cerebral function and structure, namely affecting the somatomotor regions. However, the behavioural significance of these changes on the motor system, and on motor learning in particular, remains elusive. In this study, we used a modified version of the serial reaction time task (SRTT) with auditory cues to assess sequence specific and non-specific motor learning in blind adults and sighted controls, and compare them with sighted controls performing the classic visual SRTT. Our results show that the auditory SRTT faithfully replicates the typical learning pattern obtained with the visual SRTT. On the auditory SRTT, blind individuals consistently showed faster reaction times than sighted controls, being at par with sighted individuals performing the visual SRTT. On the other hand, blind participants displayed a particular pattern of motor learning in comparison to both sighted groups; while controls improved prominently on sequence specific learning, blind individuals displayed comparable performance on both specific and non-specific learning, markedly outperforming the control groups on non-specific learning. These results show that blindness, in addition to causing long-term changes in cortical organisation, can also influence dynamic neuroplastic mechanisms in systems beyond those typically associated with compensatory sensory processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.