ArticleScientific reports2025
Tiny visual latencies can profoundly impair implicit sensorimotor learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Revisiting the explicit-implicit additivity assumption in visuomotor adaptation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Visuomotor adaptation and savings to constant and varying visual feedback delays in a driving simulator.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Visuomotor adaptation to constant and varying delays in a target acquisition task.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Advanced feedback enhances sensorimotor adaptation.Current biology : CB · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Short sub-100 ms visual feedback latencies are common in many types of human-computer interactions yet are known to markedly reduce performance in a wide variety of motor tasks from simple pointing to operating surgical robotics. It remains unclear, however, whether these latencies impair not only skilled motor performance but also the implicit sensorimotor learning that underlies its acquisition. Inspired by neurophysiological findings showing that cerebellar LTD and cortical LTP would both be disrupted by sub-100 ms latencies, we hypothesized that implicit sensorimotor learning may be particularly sensitive to these short latencies. Remarkably, we find that improving latency by just 60 ms, from 85 to 25 ms in continuous-feedback experiments, increases implicit learning by 50% and proportionally decreases explicit learning. This resulted in a dramatic reorganization of sensorimotor memory from a 45/55 to a 70/30 implicit/explicit ratio. This 70/30 ratio is more than double that observed in any previous study examining the effect of latency on sensorimotor learning, including a recent study which provided time-advanced visual feedback, suggesting that the low-latency continuous visual feedback we provided is critical for efficiently driving implicit learning. We go on to show that implicit sensorimotor learning is considerably more sensitive to latencies in the sub-100 ms range than to higher latencies, in line with the latency-specific neural plasticity that has been observed. This suggests a clear benefit for latency reduction in computer-based training that involves implicit sensorimotor learning and that across-study differences in computer-based experiments that have examined implicit sensorimotor learning might be explained by differences in unmeasured feedback latencies.
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.