ArticlePloS one2026
Implicit processes do not contribute to learning to reach in small mirror reversed visuomotor environments.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning to reach with a small visuomotor rotation (VR), where visual feedback regarding hand motion is rotated relative to one's hand trajectory, has been shown to arise unconsciously (i.e., implicitly). It is unclear whether implicit processes also support learning to reach with a small mirror reversal (MR), where visual feedback regarding hand position is reflected across the body midline. To address this gap, we asked whether implicit processes contribute to learning to reach with a small MR distortion. Forty-two right-handed participants reached to targets located 10° to the left and right of the body midline using a Kinarm exoskeleton robot. Half of the participants experienced a VR distortion (VR participants), in which cursor feedback was rotated 20° clockwise or counterclockwise relative to hand motion. The remaining participants experienced a small MR distortion (MR participants) of a similar magnitude (20°), such that cursor feedback was reflected across the body midline (y-axis). Following reaches with a VR or MR distortion, participants completed assessment trials in which they reached without cursor feedback to assess implicit learning. Analysis of angular errors (AE) revealed that all VR participants learned to reach with the VR distortion, however, only 55% of MR participants learned to reach with the MR distortion (MR-L group). AEs on the no-cursor assessment trials revealed that VR participants engaged in implicit learning. However, there was no evidence of implicit learning in the MR participants, regardless of whether they learned to reach with the MR distortion or not. These findings demonstrate that even when participants learn to reach with small MR distortions, implicit learning processes are not engaged and do not support motor learning. The absence of implicit learning when reaching with a MR distortion compared to a VR distortion suggests that MR and VR learning may be distinct forms of motor learning (e.g., skill acquisition versus motor adaptation respectively).
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.