ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Active and Passive Offline Breaks Differentially Impact the Consolidation of Procedural Motor Memories in Children and Adults.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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.
- Neural Correlates of Motor Sequence Learning and Enhanced Offline Consolidation in 7-11-Year-Old Children.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionShort post-learning breaks, lasting from 5 to 30 min, transiently enhance procedural motor memory performance in adults. However, the impact of activity type (active vs. passive) during the offline break on sequential motor performance remains poorly investigated in children.
methodThis study examined the impact of active versus passive post-learning breaks on procedural motor memory in 116 healthy participants (58 children, aged 9.03 ± 1.19; 58 adults, aged 22.89 ± 1.77 years). Participants practiced a Finger Tapping Task, reproducing a five-element keypress sequence as fast and accurately as possible. The task included two sessions (S1 and S2) separated by either a short (30 min) or long (4 h) break. The first 30-min of the post-learning break included either a passive (remaining still) or an active (engaging in daily activities) condition.
resultsRepeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant Session × Age group × Break duration and Session × Break type interaction effects (p
conclusionThese results revealed spontaneous post-learning motor performance improvements at both short and long delays in children, but only in the active post-training condition, unlike adults who showed improvements only at short delays, regardless of activity type. This suggests developmental differences in offline conditions (duration and activity) linked to plasticity mechanisms underlying procedural motor memory consolidation.
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.