ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Employing a single trial motor equivalent analysis for the assessment of motor learning.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The uncontrolled manifold analysis (UCM) is a useful technique for motor learning research enabling the classification of movement variability into solutions and errors. Less explored methodological considerations within the UCM framework are the selection of mean configurations outside of the current performance, as found in the Motor Equivalence Analysis, and a single trial approach. In this study, we demonstrated how calculating deviations away from varying mean configurations within the UCM influences the results and interpretations within motor learning experiments. Twelve young adult subjects (9F/3 M, 20.53 ± 1.25 years old) practiced the kettlebell swing over a one-week time period. We compared deviations from the mean configuration across all repetitions, to the mean of the first ten repetitions before practice and to the mean of their last ten repetitions after practice. Results suggested that subjects abandoned their initial mean performance within the first sets of kettlebell swings and reduced their errors and solutions towards what would become their mean performance after practice. They continued to refine their performance 1 week later. Subjects then completed a transfer task, testing their ability to adapt to a water-filled kettlebell. We evaluated deviations from their mean performance with the metal kettlebell and their mean performance with the water-filled kettlebell. Subjects did not reduce errors towards their mean metal kettlebell performance, but instead towards a new performance that matched the dynamics of the water-filled kettlebell. When performance is expected to change, i.e., motor learning, assessing how the variance structure changes with respect to different mean configurations can provide further insight when using a UCM approach.
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.