ArticleExperimental brain research2022
Simulated practice effects on the transfer and retention of gait sequences from the upper to the lower extremity.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ipsilateral transfer of motor skill from upper to lower limb in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated transfer of training from upper extremity limbs (the index fingers) to the lower extremity limbs (the legs) for performance of three gait sequences of different difficulty. Fifteen subjects participated in the study. Subjects in an iPad training group practiced by sequentially moving their left-and right-hand index fingers across tiles to each of three targets displayed on an iPad for 20 trials. Subjects in a gait training group practiced by sequentially walking across tiles to each of the 3 targets displayed on a screen for 20 trials. A no practice group did not receive practice trials. Immediately following practice of each level of difficulty, a transfer test (20 trials) was given for which subjects walked to the target just practiced. A retention test of 36 trials (12 trials at each difficulty level) was administered 20 min following performance of the last transfer test trial. The retention test showed that reaction times were shorter for the iPad training than gait training and no training groups; anticipatory postural adjustment times were equivalent for the iPad and gait training groups, but shorter than for the no training group; and movement times were shorter for the iPad training group than for the gait training and no training groups. These results suggest that iPad training (upper extremity) followed by performance of gait training (lower extremity) had greater benefits for learning (as measured by the delayed retention test) the gait sequences than practicing the actual gait sequences themselves.
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.