ArticlePloS one2023
Use of variable online visual feedback to optimize sensorimotor coding and learning of a motor sequence.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Gamified IMU Sensor-Based System for Training Head-Orientation Tasks in Healthy Teenagers: Event-Driven Architecture and Randomised Pilot Feasibility Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Trial
- Reliability of online visual and proprioceptive feedback: impact on learning and sensorimotor coding.Psychological research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study characterized the impact of reliable and/or unreliable online visual feedback and their order of presentation on the coding and learning of a motor sequence. Participants practiced a 12-element motor sequence 200 times. During this acquisition phase, two groups received a single type (i.e., either reliable or unreliable) of online visual feedback, two other groups encountered both types of feedback: either reliable first then unreliable, or unreliable first then reliable. Delayed retention tests and intermanual transfer tests (visuospatial and motor) were administered 24 hours later. Results showed that varying the reliability of online visual information during the acquisition phase allowed participants to use different task coding modalities without damaging their long-term sequence learning. Moreover, starting with reliable visual feedback, replaced halfway through with unreliable feedback promoted motor coding, which is seldom observed. This optimization of motor coding opens up interesting perspectives, as it is known to promote better learning of motor sequences.
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.