ArticleScientific reports2026
Enforcing a high success percentage interferes with reward-based motor learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans can adapt their movements based on binary reward feedback about success and failure. To engage in such ‘reward-based’ motor learning, the learner must encounter at least some failures, but it is unclear what percentage of failures is optimal. For learning, we hypothesize that a success percentage of 50% is optimal, as it provides the most information. For motivation, in contrast, we hypothesize that a success percentage of 80% is optimal, since too many failures can reduce motivation. In this study, we simultaneously test the hypotheses on learning and motivation in participants of a wide age range (7 to 58 years) who performed a brief circle-drawing task. The participant’s goal in this task was to double the size of the baseline circles drawn with the unseen hand. We assigned participants to a reward scheme that targets either 50% success (moderate success group) or 80% success (high success group). In line with our hypothesis on learning, the results show more motor learning in the moderate success group compared to the high success group. In contrast to our hypothesis on motivation, motivation was not higher in the high success group.
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.