ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Implicit motor sequence learning using three-dimensional reaching movements with the non-dominant left arm.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of practice on the control of reach extent.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Evaluating self-assistance during functional reach with a passive hydrostatic exoskeleton under artificial impairment.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interlimb differences in reach control could impact the learning of a motor sequence that requires whole-arm movements. The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning of an implicit, 3-dimensional whole-arm sequence task with the non-dominant left arm compared to the dominant right arm. Thirty-one right-hand dominant adults completed two consecutive days of practice of a motor sequence task presented in a virtual environment with either their dominant right or non-dominant left arm. Targets were presented one-at-a-time alternating between Random and Repeated sequences. Task performance was indicated by the time to complete the sequence (response time), and kinematic measures (hand path distance, peak velocity) were used to examine how movements changed over time. While the Left Arm group was slower than the Right Arm group at baseline, both groups significantly improved response time with practice with the Left Arm group demonstrating greater gains. The Left Arm group improved performance by decreasing hand path distance (straighter path to targets) while the Right Arm group improved performance through a smaller decrease in hand path distance combined with increasing peak velocity. Gains made during practice on Day 1 were retained on Day 2 for both groups. Overall, individuals reaching with the non-dominant left arm learned the whole-arm motor sequence task but did so through a different strategy than individuals reaching with the dominant right arm. The strategy adopted for the learning of movement sequences that require whole-arm movements may be impacted by differences in reach control between the nondominant and dominant arms.
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.