ReviewExperimental brain research2026
Identifying motor learning deficits in neurological conditions: a critical analysis of a perennial problem.
Review in Experimental brain research, 2026. 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
Abstract
Identifying deficits in motor learning has the potential to serve as an indicator of brain function in several neurological conditions. However, evidence for motor learning deficits can be confounded by factors unrelated to learning. In this review, we critically examine the evidence for these deficits in neurological conditions, focusing both on conceptual and methodological issues. Across a wide range of neurological conditions, we found that a majority of evidence for motor learning deficits is difficult to clearly interpret as learning-related and is potentially confounded by the presence of baseline differences. In addition, the use of low sample sizes, short time durations of practice, and the narrow focus on sequence learning paradigms also raise questions about the validity and generality of this evidence. Given that deficits in motor learning have implications for the early detection of neurological status and the design of rehabilitation strategies, we highlight the need for greater rigor when addressing this important, but perennially challenging, question.
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.