ArticleScientific reports2026
Effects of adaptive error-threshold practice on soccer instep kick 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of contextual interference and algorithmic practice with 33% or 44% error thresholds on learning the soccer instep kick in novice participants. Seventy-one inexperienced students (18-25 years) were randomly assigned to Blocked, Random, algorithmic 33%, algorithmic 44%, or control groups. After pre-testing, practice involved 324 trials over two days from 5, 6, and 7 m distances. Algorithmic groups began with blocked practice and progressed to serial or random structures based on accuracy thresholds (≥ 67% for 33%; ≥ 56% for 44%). Blocked and random groups practiced according to classical random and blocked order. Retention and transfer tests occurred two days post-practice; psychological pressure was induced via financial incentives, audience, and social comparison. Acquisition results showed no group differences, but algorithmic 33% improved significantly from day 1 to 2. In retention, both algorithmic groups outperformed random and control groups. In the transfer test, algorithmic 44% surpassed all groups, including algorithmic 33%. Heart rate increased post-stress induction, confirming manipulation success, yet no group differences emerged under psychological pressure. The findings may be interpreted within the challenge point framework, although the underlying informational mechanisms were not directly assessed. As an initial application of algorithmic practice to a field-based motor skill, the present results suggest that error-threshold tuning may represent a promising avenue for future motor learning research.
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.