ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2026
Revisiting the explicit-implicit additivity assumption in visuomotor adaptation.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypothesis testing governs strategic motor learning.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- Where you aim - not how you aim - affects implicit recalibration in visuomotor adaptation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
Explicit aiming strategies have been shown to play an important role in visuomotor adaptation-enabling rapid improvements in performance and affording flexibility-but their interaction and downstream consequences on implicit recalibration processes remain hotly debated. Although early work assumed these processes combined additively, recent studies have challenged this view. However, these studies may have overlooked subtle spatial and temporal dynamics, which could influence how explicit aiming and implicit recalibration interact. Recent research shows that implicit recalibration anchors to where a person aims their movements, with aiming strategies directly shaping their spatial development. Moreover, implicit recalibration operates across multiple timescales, with both temporally volatile and persistent components. To examine whether these factors mask the true relationship between explicit strategies and implicit recalibration, we conducted a visuomotor rotation task while carefully accounting for the interplay of spatial and temporal dynamics. We used two complementary tests: a direct test of strict additivity examining whether implicit and explicit components sum to total adaptation, and a slope analysis examining whether the two processes exhibit a compensatory tradeoff. After controlling for spatial dynamics (plan-based generalization) and temporal dynamics (forgetting), we found that strict additivity failed in both groups-implicit and explicit measures did not perfectly sum to total adaptation. Nonetheless, both groups showed a robust inverse relationship between explicit strategies and implicit recalibration, consistent with partial additivity. This pattern of compensatory tradeoff, despite imperfect summation, may result from simple methodological imprecision, the operation of additional but unobserved processes, or more complex nonlinear interactions between processes.
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.