ArticleeNeuro2024
Measures of Implicit and Explicit Adaptation Do Not Linearly Add.
Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypothesis testing governs strategic motor learning.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- Mistaking Covariance for Combination in Sensorimotor Adaptation: Regression Slopes Do Not Test Additivity.eNeuro · 2026Article
- Revisiting the explicit-implicit additivity assumption in visuomotor adaptation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Where you aim - not how you aim - affects implicit recalibration in visuomotor adaptation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Modeling human visuomotor adaptation with a disturbance observer framework.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- What can ANS signals tell us about motor learning? An implication for better assessment of cognitive contribution to motor learning.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Review
- Adapting to visuomotor rotations in stepped increments increases implicit motor learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Pupil diameter tracked during motor adaptation in humans.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Moving effectively is essential for any animal. Thus, many different kinds of brain processes likely contribute to learning and adapting movement. How these contributions are combined is unknown. Nevertheless, the field of motor adaptation has been working under the assumption that measures of explicit and implicit motor adaptation can simply be added in total adaptation. While this has been tested, we show that these tests were insufficient. We put this additivity assumption to the test in various ways and find that measures of implicit and explicit adaptation are not additive. This means that future studies should measure both implicit and explicit adaptation directly. It also challenges us to disentangle how various motor adaptation processes do combine when producing movements and may have implications for our understanding of other kinds of learning as well (data and code: https://osf.io/3yhw5).
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.