ArticleScientific reports2022
A study on how concurrent visual feedback affects motor learning of adjustability of grasping force in younger and older adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Controlled Feedback and Behavioral Outcomes in Motor Skill Learning: A Meta-Analysis.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects of visual terminal feedback on hand dexterity in relation to visuospatial ability in subacute stroke: a preliminary study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Construction and evaluation of a finger motor feedback system to improve finger dexterity.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2025Article
- Effects of self-control of feedback timing on motor learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The Role of Visual Information Quantity in Fine Motor Performance.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the differences of the effectiveness from concurrent visual feedback among younger and older adults in learning tasks that require adjustability of grasping force (AGF), as well as the functions related to AGF in each generation. The younger and older adult groups were evaluated for simple visual reaction time as visual-motor speed (VMS) and a 100 g AGF task that reflected the difference between desired performance and actual performance. The main learning task was then practiced using concurrent visual feedback and tested without feedback. The VMS of older adults was slower than that of the younger, and the error in the 100 g AGF task was larger in older adults than in the younger adults. Performance improved from pre-test to retention test in both groups, but the older adult group failed to reach the level of the younger adult group. The results of this study show that concurrent visual feedback is effective for learning the tasks that require AGF in both groups. Indicatively, improvement in performance during practice is insufficient in older people for whom there is a large difference between desired performance and actual performance, or whose VMS is slow.
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.