ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Where you aim - not how you aim - affects implicit recalibration in visuomotor adaptation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The influence of explicit strategies on implicit recalibration during visuomotor adaptation has become a central question in motor learning. Because the two systems operate in tandem, explicit strategies could indirectly influence implicit recalibration. However, explicit strategies are not unitary: they may rely on algorithmic-based computations or memory-based retrieval of cached solutions. This raises the possibility that different strategy implementations interact with the cerebellar-based implicit recalibration system in qualitatively distinct ways, especially given that these strategies likely rely on different frontoparietal networks. Here, we tested whether the type of explicit strategy modulates implicit recalibration. Across a set of experiments, we observed subtle differences in the spatial profile of implicit generalization: the algorithmic strategy produced a broader generalization pattern than the retrieval strategy, even after controlling for intertrial decay, generalization structure, and between-target interactions. While this pattern is suggestive of greater flexibility afforded by algorithmic strategy use compared to memory-based retrieval, it could instead arise from increased variability in explicit aiming, which constitutes the input data driving implicit recalibration. Indeed, when we isolated the direct contribution of each strategy to implicit recalibration by rigorously controlling for reach variability and using error-clamp feedback to ensure uniform implicit learning conditions, we found no difference in implicit recalibration across strategies. Together, these findings suggest that while algorithmic and retrieval strategies differ in their behavioral signatures and influence the movement plan, the implicit recalibration process itself remains rigid with respect to the strategy employed.
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.