Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31100547›Full record

ArticleCognition2019

Fluid intelligence and working memory support dissociable aspects of learning by physical but not observational practice.

Dace Apšvalka, Emily S Cross, Richard Ramsey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Dace ApšvalkaSocial Brain in Action Laboratory, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, UK; MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK.
Emily S CrossSocial Brain in Action Laboratory, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, UK; Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: emily.cross@glasgow.ac.uk.
Richard RamseySocial Brain in Action Laboratory, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, UK. Electronic address: r.ramsey@bangor.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105597121Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans have a remarkable ability to learn by watching others, whether learning to tie an elaborate knot or play the piano. However, the mechanisms that translate visual input into motor skill execution remain unclear. It has been proposed that common cognitive and neural mechanisms underpin learning motor skills by physical and observational practice. Here we provide a novel test of the common mechanism hypothesis by testing the extent to which certain individual differences predict observational as well as physical learning. Participants (N = 92 per group) either physically practiced a five-element key-press sequence or watched videos of similar sequences before physically performing trained and untrained sequences in a test phase. We also measured cognitive abilities across participants that have previously been associated with rates of learning, including working memory and fluid intelligence. Our findings show that individual differences in working memory and fluid intelligence predict improvements in dissociable aspects of motor learning following physical practice, but not observational practice. Working memory predicts general learning gains from pre- to post-test that generalise to untrained sequences, whereas fluid intelligence predicts sequence-specific gains that are tied to trained sequences. However, neither working memory nor fluid intelligence predict training gains following observational learning. Therefore, these results suggest limits to the shared mechanism hypothesis of physical and observational learning. Indeed, models of observational learning need updating to reflect the extent to which such learning is based on shared as well as distinct processes compared to physical learning. We suggest that such differences could reflect the more intentional nature of learning during physical compared to observational practice, which relies to a greater extent on higher-order cognitive resources such as working memory and fluid intelligence.

Indexed as

IntelligenceMemory, Short-TermPractice, PsychologicalAdultCognitionFemaleHumansIndividualityIntelligence TestsMaleYoung AdultFluid intelligenceIndividual differencesObservational learningWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID31100547
PMCPMC6711769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.