ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Use-dependent learning biases the initial state but not the learning dynamics of implicit adaptation.
Article 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor adaptation arises from multiple learning mechanisms, including use-dependent learning (UDL) driven by repetition and implicit error-based learning (EBL) driven by motor prediction errors. Although both mechanisms contribute implicitly to shaping movement execution, whether these two mechanisms interact remains unclear. The present study used an error-clamp (EC) task to isolate implicit EBL and directly examined whether UDL affects subsequent implicit adaptation. Participants first performed extensive single-target repetitive reaches to induce use-dependent biases and then immediately transitioned to an EC task. We manipulated whether the UDL bias was aligned with, opposed to, or neutral toward the to-be-adapted direction in three separate groups of participants. Results demonstrate that UDL robustly shifted the initial state of adaptation, but did not alter the learning dynamics: all groups showed comparable trial-by-trial adaptation and converged to similar asymptotic levels despite their different initial states. These findings support an independent rather than an interactive relationship between UDL and implicit EBL, highlighting that execution-level motor learning components are additive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41801402What 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.