ArticleeLife2025
Age-dependent predictors of effective reinforcement motor learning across childhood.
Article in eLife, 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.
- Enforcing a high success percentage interferes with reward-based motor learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- The sign of exploration during reward-based motor learning is not independent from trial to trial.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- A Circle-Drawing Task for Studying Reward-Based Motor Learning in Children and Adults.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Across development, children must learn motor skills such as drawing with a crayon. Reinforcement learning, driven by success and failure, is fundamental to such sensorimotor learning. It typically requires a child to explore movement options along a continuum (grip location on a crayon) and learn from probabilistic rewards (whether the crayon draws or breaks). We studied the development of reinforcement motor learning using online motor tasks to engage children aged 3-17 years and adults (cross-sectional sample, N=385). Participants moved a cartoon penguin across a scene and were rewarded (animated cartoon clip) based on their final movement position. Learning followed a clear developmental trajectory when participants could choose to move anywhere along a continuum and the reward probability depended on the final movement position. Learning was incomplete or absent in 3-8 year-olds and gradually improved to adult-like levels by adolescence. A reinforcement learning model fit to each participant identified two age-dependent factors underlying improvement across development: an increasing amount of exploration after a failed movement and a decreasing level of motor noise. We predicted, and confirmed, that switching to discrete targets and deterministic reward would improve 3-8 year-olds' learning to adult-like levels by increasing exploration after failed movements. Overall, we show a robust developmental trajectory of reinforcement motor learning abilities under ecologically relevant conditions, that is, continuous movement options mapped to probabilistic reward. This learning may be limited by immature spatial processing and probabilistic reasoning abilities in young children and can be rescued by reducing task demands.
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.