ArticlePeerJ2024
Applying different levels of practice variability for motor learning: More is not better.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Measuring Motor Competence in Mid-Adulthood: A Reliable Holistic Test (HOLMOT) Sensitive to Sex and Age Differences.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Exploring motor variability in adults with severe athetoid or ataxic cerebral palsy: Impact on error-based and reward-based learning.PloS one · 2026Article
- Differential Effects of Individually Adapted Challenge-Oriented Heidelberg Ballschule Activities Versus Static Version on Motor Competence and Affective Engagement in 9-11-Year-Old Female Children.BioMed research international · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Background: Variable practice is a broadly used tool to improve motor learning processes. However, controversial results can be found in literature about the success of this type of practice compared to constant practice. This study explored one potential reason for this controversy: the manipulation of variable practice load applied during practice and its effects according to the initial performance level and the initial intrinsic variability of the learner. Method: Sixty-five participants were grouped into four practice schedules to learn a serial throwing task, in which the training load of variable practice was manipulated: one constant practice group and three groups with different variable practice loads applied. After a pre-test, participants trained for 2 weeks. A post-test and three retests (96 h, 2 weeks and 1 month) were carried out after training. The participants' throwing accuracy was assessed through error parameters and their initial intrinsic motor variability was assessed by the autocorrelation coefficient of the error. Results: The four groups improved their throwing performance. Pairwise comparisons and effect sizes showed larger error reduction in the low variability group. Different loads of variable practice seem to induce different performance improvements in a throwing task. The modulation of the variable practice load seems to be a step forward to clarify the controversy about its benefits, but it has to be guided by the individuals' features, mainly by the initial intrinsic variability of the learner.
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.