ArticleScientific reports2026
Reinforcement drives within- not between-trial motor adaptation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While reinforcement has repeatedly been shown to impact motor adaptation, previous inconsistent findings hinder our mechanistic understanding. To conciliate contradictory views, we used two distinct motor tasks to investigate whether reinforcement differentially modulates two core motor learning processes: between-trial learning resulting from motor planning and within-trial learning supported by the online correction of ongoing movements. We observed successful adaptation, retention and highly similar temporal profiles of adaptation for both tasks, in line with the notion that motor adaptation of upper limb movements is likely to result from updates in both motor planning and online correction. Reinforcement enhanced performance in the task allowing for within-trial adaptation. Conversely, higher degrees of early motor variability were associated with faster between-trial but not within-trial adaptation. These results highlight a dissociation of factors affecting motor adaptation: Reinforcement seems to primarily impact within-trial learning linked to the online correction of ongoing movements. In contrast, early motor variability might benefit between-trial learning by informing motor planning potentially via an exploration of the motor output space. Our results help explain previous inconsistent findings and add to our theoretical understanding by demonstrating that the effects of reinforcement and motor variability may depend on whether adaptation is driven by within- or between-trial learning.
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.