Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31020516›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2019

Testing enhances motor practice.

Tobias Tempel, Christian Frings

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Tobias TempelLudwigsburg University of Education, Reuteallee 46, 71634, Ludwigsburg, Germany. tobias.tempel@ph-ludwigsburg.de.
Christian FringsDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Mental RecallMotor SkillsPractice, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceFemaleHumansIntentionMaleReaction TimeSerial LearningYoung AdultBody movementInterim-test effectMotor sequence learningRetrievalTesting effect

Identifiers

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.