ArticleNPJ science of learning2024
A systematic review of observational practice for adaptation of reaching movements.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 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.
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
Observational practice is discussed as a substitute for physical practice for motor learning and adaptation. We systematically reviewed the literature on observational practice in reaching and aiming tasks. Our objectives were to identify (i) performance differences between observational and physical practice; (ii) factors that contribute to adaptation following observational practice; and (iii) the neural correlates of observational practice. We found 18 studies, all investigated adaptation of reaching in visuomotor rotations or force-field perturbations. Results of the studies showed that observational practice led to adaptation in both, visuomotor rotation and force-field paradigms (d = -2.16 as compared to no practice). However, direct effects were considerably smaller as compared to physical practice (d = 4.38) and aftereffects were absent, suggesting that observational practice informed inverse, but not forward modes. Contrarily, neurophysiological evidence in this review showed that observational and physical practice involved similar brain regions.
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.