ArticleNPJ science of learning2026
Motor sequences resist automatization as attentional demands increase with sequence learning.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 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
Automatization of motor sequences involves a shift from effortful, attention-dependent control to fluent performance through practice. This study examined how learning cues and instructions influence the development of sequence-specific automatization using a modified serial reaction time task with temporally spaced stimuli. Participants practiced a training sequence across ten sessions under four conditions varying in instruction (intentional vs. incidental) and visual cues (present vs. absent). Performance was assessed before and after training under single- and dual-task conditions for trained and control sequences. Results demonstrated robust sequence learning, with faster reaction times for trained than control sequences. Intentional instruction enhanced learning, particularly with visual cues. Contrary to expectations, dual-task costs decreased for the control sequence but increased for the trained sequence. Sequence-specific dual-task costs were associated with superior learning and explicit knowledge, suggesting that deeper sequence encoding may prolong attentional demands despite extensive practice.
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.