ArticlePsychological research2019
Skill in discrete keying sequences is execution rate specific.
Article in Psychological research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motor sequences resist automatization as attentional demands increase with sequence learning.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- C-SMB 2.0: Integrating over 25 years of motor sequencing research with the Discrete Sequence Production task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Task-independent auditory probes reveal changes in mental workload during simulated quadrotor UAV training.Health information science and systems · 2023Article
- A multi-representation approach to the contextual interference effect: effects of sequence length and practice.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Consolidation of motor sequence learning eliminates susceptibility of SMAproper to TMS: a combined rTMS and cTBS study.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Isoluminant stimuli in a familiar discrete keying sequence task can be ignored.Psychological research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study tested the hypothesis that in motor sequences, the interval between successive movements is critical for the type of representation that develops. Participants practiced two 7-key sequences in the context of a discrete sequence production (DSP) task. The 0-RSI group practiced these sequences with response stimulus intervals (RSIs) of 0, which is typical for the DSP task, while the long-RSI group practiced the same sequences with unpredictable RSIs between 500 and 2000 ms. The ensuing test phase examined performance of these familiar and of unfamiliar sequences for both groups under both RSI regimes. The results support our hypothesis that the motor chunks that 0-RSI participants developed could not be used with long RSIs, whereas the long-RSI participants developed sequence representations that cannot be used with 0 RSIs. A new, computerized, sequence awareness task showed that long-RSI participants had limited sequence knowledge. The sequencing skill developed by long-RSI participants can, therefore, not have been based on explicit knowledge.
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.