Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839919›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

The effect of reward and voluntary choice on the motor learning of serial reaction time task.

Yanghui Quan, Jiayue Wang, Yandong Wang, Guanlan Kang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yanghui Quan *School of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Jiayue Wang *School of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Yandong WangSchool of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Guanlan KangSchool of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Reward and voluntary choice facilitate motor skill learning through motivation. However, it remains unclear how their combination influences motor skill learning. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of reward and voluntary choice on motor skill learning in a serial reaction time task (SRTT). Methods: Participants completed six parts of SRTT, including pre-test, training phase, immediate post-test, a random session, delayed post-test, and retention test on the following day. During the training phase, participants were divided into four groups (reward_choice, reward_no-choice, no-reward_choice, no-reward_no-choice). In the reward condition, participants received reward for correct and faster (than a baseline) responses while those in the no-reward groups did not. For the choice manipulation, participants in the voluntary choice groups chose the color of the target, whereas in the forced choice groups, the same color was assigned by the computer. Results: The results showed that the four groups did not exhibit any significant differences in reaction time and error rate in the pre-test phase. Importantly, both reward and voluntary choice significantly enhanced sequence-specific learning effects, while no interaction was found. No significant effects of reward and voluntary choice were observed in the retention test. Conclusions: These findings suggest that reward and voluntary choice enhance motor skill performance and training independently, potentially at the action-selection level, which implies different mechanisms underlying the influences of reward and voluntary choice.

Indexed as

motivationmotor learningrewardserial reaction time taskvoluntary choice

Identifiers

PMID39839919
PMCPMC11747785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.