ArticlePsychological research2024
Reliability of online visual and proprioceptive feedback: impact on learning and sensorimotor coding.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multisensory integration is essential for learning and sensorimotor coding, facilitating learners' adaptation to environmental changes. Recent findings confirm that introducing unreliability into visual feedback enhances the use of motor coding, probably because proprioceptive cues are given greater weight. The present study was designed to test this hypothesis and, more generally, to explore the impact of visual versus proprioceptive cue reliability on learning processes. Participants performed a 12-target pointing sequence 100 times with different combinations of visual and proprioceptive feedback: reliable versus unreliable. Retention tests and intermanual transfer tests were administered 24 h later. Results showed that learning and sensorimotor coding were both affected by the different combinations of visual and proprioceptive cue reliability. Fully reliable feedback allowed for the best retention, while fully unreliable feedback resulted in the worst retention. Visual reliability alone mediated the level of visuospatial coding performance in visuospatial transfer, regardless of the level of proprioceptive reliability, and conversely, reliable proprioception combined with unreliable vision provided the optimum sensory environment for motor coding in the motor transfer test. Overall, our study highlighted the essential role of both visual cue reliability and proprioceptive cue reliability -and their interactions- in motor learning and its generalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39535610What 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.