ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2022
Does an interference task immediately after practice prevent memory consolidation of sequence-specific learning?
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
[Purpose] Learning of movement procedures (sequence learning) is essential in physical therapy. Studies have shown that sequence-specific learning may be integrated from an early stage. This study examines the effect of an interference task on the retention of sequence-specific learning. [Participants and Methods] Young adults were randomly divided into a control group and an interference task group, and two experiments were performed. In each experiment, the control group practiced task A in both the acquisition phase and the retention phase four to five hours later. The Interference group practiced task A in the acquisition phase followed by task B, which is similar to the interference task, and then performed task A in the retention phase four to five hours later. In Experiment 2, the amount of practice for task A in the practice phase was 25% of that in Experiment 1. [Results] Sequence-specific learning occurred in the early stages of practice. In particular, the performance of Experiment 1 reached the ceiling. The results of the retention test showed no significant interference effect due to similar tasks. [Conclusion] Implicit sequence-specific learning stabilizes performance early and is not affected by interference tasks.
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.