ArticleMemory & cognition2019
Testing enhances motor practice.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2019. 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.
- Developmental improvements in the ability to benefit from testing across middle childhood.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Retrieval Practice Enhances New Learning but does Not Affect Performance in Subsequent Arithmetic Tasks.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Specifying the mechanisms behind benefits of saving-enhanced memory.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Context-Dependent Memory of Motor Sequences.Journal of cognition · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated how retrieval of a set of newly learned motor sequences influences subsequent learning of another set of motor sequences. In four experiments, retrieval reduced an acceleration of movement execution over subsequent study trials. This relative slowing-down was associated with better recall performance in a final memory test. Explicit retrievability of motor sequences benefited from longer study-trial response times (RTs), suggesting that retrieval caused more attentive encoding. The use of motor sequences requiring overt action during encoding allowed for this demonstration of a twofold forward effect of testing on encoding quality and on recall. Experiment 1 adopted a paradigm used in previous studies with verbal materials. Experiment 2 changed the test format to be less susceptible to interference. Experiments 3 and 4 additionally switched from a between-participants design to a within-participants design. These modifications did not affect the occurrence of the twofold forward effect of testing but enabled detecting a correlation between recall and study-trial performance that had been precluded by the strongly interference-dependent test format of the original paradigm. Our findings demonstrate an immediate learning benefit of testing. It enhances encoding in subsequent study trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31020516What 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.