Trial reportPloS one2024
Ipsilateral transfer of motor skill from lower to upper limb in healthy adults: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWhereas motor skills of the untrained upper limb (UL) can improve following practice with the other UL, it has yet to be determined if an UL motor skill can improve following practice of that skill with the lower limb (LL).
methodsForty-five healthy subjects randomly participated in a 10-minute single-session intervention of (1) practicing 50 reaching movement (RM) sequences with the non-dominant left LL toward light switches (LL group); or (2) observing the identical 50 light switches sequences (Switches Observation (SO) group); or (3) observing nature films (Nature Observation (NO) group). RM sequence performance with the left UL toward the light switches was tested before and immediately after the intervention and retested after 24 h.
resultsReaching response time improved in the LL group more than in the SO and NO groups in the posttest (pBonferroni = 0.038 and pBonferroni < 0.001, respectively), and improved in the LL group more than in the NO group in the retest (pBonferroni = 0.004). Percentage of fails did not differ between groups across the timepoints.
conclusionsIt appears that the actual practice of the RM sequence skill with the UL together with the cognitive element embedded in the observation of the RM sequences contributes to ipsilateral transfer from LL to UL.
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.