ArticleScientific reports2026
Spaced practice and reactive inhibition have limited or no effects on motor sequence learning.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spaced practice in declarative memory tasks consistently yields greater learning than massed practice, but spacing effects are less consistently observed for motor skills. This study evaluates factors that may determine spacing effects on motor skill learning, including: (1) extant theories of declarative spacing effects, (2) reactive inhibition, which transiently impairs performance and may also impair learning, and (3) the micro-consolidation hypothesis, which posits that motor skill learning takes place exclusively during brief performance breaks. Across two experiments, we varied the number of correct sequences per trial and the length of breaks during training, while keeping the total correct sequence count constant, using a widely studied motor sequence task. A pronounced performance advantage was observed for the spaced groups by the end of training. However, on a later test in which the task conditions were equated, group performance was statistically indistinguishable. Hence, spaced practice yielded no or minimal learning advantage and the large reactive inhibition effect in the massed group appears to be a transient performance phenomenon without consequence for learning. Furthermore, we found no evidence for the most straightforward micro-consolidation account, which predicts greater learning with more breaks. Our results are consistent with a simple account advanced by Gupta and Rickard
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.