ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
Evaluating Individual Differences in Implicit Perceptual-Motor Learning: A Parallel Assessments Approach.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 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
Implicit learning describes learning from experience that is not available to conscious awareness. The question of whether some individuals are better implicit learners than others has suggested and may contribute to difference in performance among experts. Across four experiments, adult participants completed the Serial Interception Sequence Learning (SISL) task across multiple parallel learning assessment forms. Previously, SISL sequence-specific performance has been shown to resist explicit knowledge influence, allowing for repeated reassessments of implicit learning with novel statistical structure. Our findings indicate that group-level sequence-specific performance occurred robustly in each reassessment; however, participants who exhibited more sequence-specific performance on one assessment did not exhibit better performance on parallel assessments, indicating no rank-order stability in learning. In all four experiments, with two to twelve reassessments of learning, no participants exhibited consistently better sequence learning rates than the other participants, indicating no evidence for a better ability in implicit learning. Measurements of other cognitive constructs, such as processing speed collected in parallel, exhibited robust individual differences. In Experiment 4, a general battery of cognitive measurements showed typical individual differences in measures of working memory, processing speed, and personality, but none correlated with implicit learning ability. We hypothesize that implicit learning arises from a general process of neuroplasticity reorganizing functions during practice and that our findings suggest that this process occurs at a basically similar rate across all people. Everybody learns from practice implicitly, but results suggest that the learning rate does not vary substantially across this sample.
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.