ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2024
Evaluating practice effects across learning trials - ceiling effects or something more?
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a harmonized memory score for multicenter Alzheimer's disease and related dementia research.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- Enhancing psychological health and cognitive inhibition in college students: insights from mindfulness training and high-intensity interval training.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Does the "learning effect" caused by digital devices exaggerate sports visual training outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundPractice effects (PE) are traditionally considered improvements in performance observed resulting from repeated exposure to test materials across multiple testing sessions. While PE are commonly observed for memory tests, this effect has only been considered in summary total scores. The current objective was to consider PE in summary total scores, individual learning trials, and learning slopes.
methodOne-week PE for individual trial and learning slope performance was examined on the BVMT-R and HVLT-R in 151 cognitively intact participants and 131 participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) aged 65 years and older.
resultsOne-week PE were observed across all trials and summary total scores for both memory measures and diagnostic classifications, despite the potential for ceiling effects to limit improvement on retesting. PE were largest on the first trial relative to subsequent learning trials. This effect was diminished - but not eliminated - in participants with MCI. Conversely, no PE were observed for learning slope scores, which was counter to expectations and likely confounded by ceiling effects.
conclusionsPE were present across learning trials but not learning slopes, and the initial learning trial at follow-up tended to benefit most from PE relative to subsequent learning trials. Ceiling effects appeared to influence PE for learning slopes more than learning trials. These results highlight the potential diagnostic utility of PE across individual learning trials and inform how they are distributed at follow-up, while also suggesting that learning slopes may be generally stable during longitudinal assessment.
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.