ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2025
Divergent effects of pitch feedback on online and offline motor sequence 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Motor sequence learning - the integration of individual movement elements into coordinated actions - is essential for everyday skills. This process comprises online learning during practice and post-practice offline consolidation. A key mechanism is action-perception coupling, in which motor actions become linked with predictable sensory outcomes. Pitch feedback, which conveys timing and spatial information, may strengthen this coupling and facilitate skill acquisition. Here, we evaluated pitch feedback as a tool to modulate both online and offline motor sequence learning. Methods: We included sixty healthy young non-musicians (mean age: 28.4 ± 4.6 years) who were asked to perform a finger-tapping task on a MIDI keyboard. They were randomly assigned to one of three auditory feedback groups: congruent, fixed, and random pitch feedback. The task involved repeatedly performing an 11-item sequence with the right hand. Pitch feedback was delivered according to group assignment during 14 training blocks of six sequences each. Prior to training, participants completed one block of the task without pitch feedback to assess baseline performance. Retention was tested 6 h later under two conditions: seven blocks without pitch feedback (Retest 1) and seven blocks with pitch feedback (Retest 2). Results: Congruent pitch feedback facilitated online learning across the initial training session compared to fixed or random feedback. This advantage of congruent pitch feedback persisted during retesting in the presence of feedback (Retest 2), but did not generalize to task performance in the absence of pitch feedback (Retest 1). Importantly, while online learning and task performance were facilitated by congruent pitch feedback, between-session performance changes were significantly larger in the group that received random pitch feedback during the initial training session compared to the congruent and fixed feedback groups. Conclusion: These findings highlight a dissociation between feedback types that optimize immediate performance and those that promote lasting motor memory formation. While congruent pitch feedback facilitates online skill acquisition compared to fixed or random pitch feedback, unpredictable auditory input may challenge learners to engage internal monitoring mechanisms, leading to more robust, feedback-independent motor memory consolidation. These insights have implications for optimizing auditory feedback in motor learning and neurorehabilitation contexts.
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.