ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Effects of Implicit versus Explicit Learning of a Novel Skill in Young Gymnastic Athletes.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- The effects of the implementation order of implicit and explicit learning methods on learners' task enjoyment and motor skill acquisition.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the effects of explicit learning with implicit learning using a dual-task paradigm on learning a novel skill and whether the performance was maintained over an extended period.
methodsForty-four young children from a local gymnastics club (
resultsComparable improvements were found beyond baseline performance for both learning conditions over the six-month hiatus. While both groups increased performance at the post-test, neither explicit nor implicit learning groups were able to maintain the achieved performance level into six months of retention. In particular, the explicit group showed a more marked decrease than the implicit group after three months, which was probably caused by the decay of their reliance on the retrieval of declarative knowledge from working memory.
conclusionsThe current findings highlight the importance of conducting retention tests over an extended period to monitor performance development after the acquisition of a novel task by different learning methods, as they can differ over time.
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.