ArticleExperimental brain research2022
Less motor (re-)planning requires fewer working memory resources.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inverse hysteresis effects in a real and virtual environment.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Which factors influence plan reuse in a sequential posture selection task?Frontiers in psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the current study, we asked if less motor re-planning requires fewer resources in working memory (WM). To this end, participants executed a spatial WM task in parallel to different sequential motor tasks: (1) a randomised task with a high amount of motor re-planning and (2) an ordered task with a lower amount of motor re-planning. Recall performance in the spatial WM task was measured as the dependent variable. Hand posture was used to calculate the percentage of motor re-planning and, thus, to validate the experimental manipulation. The percentage of motor re-planning was lower in the ordered task, while spatial WM performance was higher. This indicates that WM resources depleted by the motor task scale with the amount of motor re-planning. Results further showed a significant recency effect (i.e. better recall of late items) in the spatial WM task. As previous studies found that recency effects in a verbal WM task are disrupted by a concurrent motor task, the presence of recency in the current study indicates a differential interference of a concurrent motor task on verbal vs. spatial recall, which has important implications for several current models of WM.
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.