ArticlePloS one2025
From lab to real life: Is there a link between lab-based and ecological assessment of Procedural Perceptual-Motor Learning tasks?
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Implication of explicit knowledge and subjective evaluation in procedural perceptual-motor learning.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Procedural Perceptual-Motor Learning (PPML) refers to the process leading to the acquisition of new motor skills through repeated practice. It is crucial to (re-)acquire skills needed in daily life and rehabilitation. It can be divided in two processes: motor sequence learning (SL) and sensorimotor adaptation (SA). SL refers to the acquisition of a sequence of actions that follows a precise order, while SA involves continuously adjusting motor outputs to compensate for environmental or internal disturbances. These two processes are typically measured using different lab-based tasks and are presumed to play a role in ecological/ naturalistic tasks. However, to our knowledge, no study examined the relationship between performance on lab-based tasks and ecological/ naturalistic tasks. To address this gap, we designed two lab-based tasks and six ecological tasks assessing SL and SA in an original research including 42 participants (young adults). After ensuring with non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA that all the tasks presented features of learning (all 15.1 <χ² < 142; p < 0.5), Spearman's rank correlation tests were performed between each lab-based task measuring SL and SA and the six ecological tasks. Our findings reveal low to moderate correlations between lab-based and ecological tasks measuring SL and SA (0.265 < rho < 0.395; p < 0.05). This suggests that the lab-based tasks partially reflect PPML as it occurs in everyday life. We believe that the partial ecological validity of these lab-based tasks is essential for their use, especially in the context of clinical evaluation prior to rehabilitation.
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.