ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
A safety mechanism for observational learning.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep-related motor skill consolidation and generalizability after physical practice, motor imagery, and action observation.iScience · 2023Article
- Tutor-demonstrated feedback in the mini-clinical evaluation exercise.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This empirical article presents the first evidence of a "safety mechanism" based on an observational-learning paradigm. It is accepted that during observational learning, a person can use different strategies to learn a motor skill, but it is unknown whether the learner is able to circumvent the encoding of an uncompleted observed skill. In this study, participants were tested in a dyadic protocol in which an observer watched a participant practicing two different motor sequences during a learning phase. During this phase, one of the two motor sequences was interrupted by a stop signal that precluded motor learning. The results of the subsequent retention test revealed that both groups learned the two motor sequences, but only the physical practice group showed worse performance for the interrupted sequence. The observers were consequently able to use a safety strategy to learn both sequences equally. Our findings are discussed in light of the implications of the action observation network for sequence learning and the cognitive mechanisms of error-based observation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28752378What 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.