SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of errorless motor learning on movement outcomes: a lifespan and impairment perspective.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
Background: When practice is structured such that learners experience considerable success, movement skills are learned effectively. Errorless motor learning minimises errors during practice by constraining the environment to promote success in the early stage of practice. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on the effects of errorless motor learning on performance outcomes (OSF registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SPHR6). Method: A literature search of nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, PyscINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro) and grey literature (Google Scholar and ProQuest Open Dissertation) identified experimental and quasi-experimental studies that examined the effect of errorless motor learning on movement task performance. Effect sizes were calculated (Hedges' g) and heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-statistic and Results: Out of the 8,514 articles from the search, 29 (31 experiments), including a total of 1,509 participants, were eligible. For the full sample analysis of movement performance, errorless motor learning did not demonstrate a significant overall effect compared to errorful learning ( Conclusion: Errorless motor learning did not demonstrate a consistent overall advantage over errorful learning for movement outcomes. Significant benefits are apparent in specific subgroups - children and individuals with impairments. The overall strength of the evidence is limited by moderate to high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and low certainty across studies. Future research should employ more rigorous experimental designs to strengthen the evidence base and clarify conditions under which errorless learning is most effective. Systematic review registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MZXDG.
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.