ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2025
Implication of explicit knowledge and subjective evaluation in procedural perceptual-motor learning.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Procedural Perceptual-Motor Learning (PPML) enables the acquisition of new motor procedures and is fundamental for a wide range of human behaviors. While traditional research has focused on task-related characteristics, there is growing interest in individual factors to account for inter-individual differences in PPML. This study aims to investigate the roles of two individual factors related to learners' strategies and mindsets: (a) explicit knowledge of the task's characteristics and regularities and (b) subjective evaluation of the task and performance. We hypothesized that (a) participants reporting explicit knowledge of the task would exhibit higher PPML scores compared to those who did not, and (b) PPML scores would be related to subjective evaluation. Methods: Participants were invited to practice two types of PPML tasks: motor sequence learning assessed by a Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) (Experiment 1) and visuomotor adaptation assessed by a Target Jumping Task (TJT) (Experiment 2). After each task, they were asked to answer post-learning questions about (a) their explicit knowledge of the task's rules and (b) their subjective evaluations, including perceived levels of stress, tiredness, motivation, attention, and perceived progress. Results: The findings of Experiment 1 revealed that participants reporting explicit knowledge of the SRTT exhibited higher learning scores, which were related to perceived stress and progress. In Experiment 2, participants reporting explicit knowledge of the TJT exhibited lower learning scores, which were related to perceived stress, tiredness, concentration, and progress. Discussion: This study offers a novel and comprehensive perspective on inter-individual differences in PPML by considering the roles of explicit knowledge and subjective evaluations in two types of PPML tasks. Although further replication and generalization are necessary, the findings provide valuable insights into how learner-task interactions may explain inter-individual differences and highlight the importance of considering participants' subjective reports research for future studies on PPML.
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.