ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024
Overview of Effects of Motor Learning Strategies in Neurologic and Geriatric Populations: A Systematic Mapping Review.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Concurrent Bilateral M1 and Anodal Cerebellar tDCS Effects on Learning of a Bimanual Video Game Task.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Aspects of Mental Imagery in Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementia: A Review of Cognitive, Motor, and Emotional Interventions.Brain sciences · 2025Review
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
Objective: To provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of 7 commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurologic and geriatric populations. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched. Study Selection: A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of 7 motor learning strategies-errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery-within the geriatric and neurologic population. Data Extraction: Two thousand and ninety-nine articles were identified. After screening, 87 articles were included for further analysis. Two reviewers extracted descriptive data regarding the population, type of motor learning strategy/intervention, frequency and total duration intervention, task trained, movement performance measures, assessment time points, and between-group effects of the included studies. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification. Data Synthesis: Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged in 2010. Eight populations were included, for example, Parkinson's and stroke. Included studies were not equally balanced: analogy learning (n=2), errorless learning and trial-and-error learning (n=5), mental practice (n=19), observational learning (n=11), discovery learning (n=0), and dual-tasking (n=50). Overall studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Four studies were deemed sufficiently reliable to interpret effects. Positive trends regarding the effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning, and movement imagery. Conclusions: Findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, especially toward dual-tasking. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies to improve functional studies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.
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.