ArticlePloS one2026
Dopaminergic genetic variation and response to social comparative feedback when learning a motor sequence task.
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
Abstract
Positive social comparative feedback during motor skill practice is hypothesized to enhance motor learning by triggering a dopaminergic response. Individual differences in dopamine-related genes impact dopamine neurotransmission and may influence responsiveness to motor practice conditions that target dopaminergic pathways. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of dopamine genotype on learning of a motor sequence task under two different feedback conditions: response time only feedback or response time with positive social comparison. Fifty-two adults practiced a joystick-based motor sequence task over two consecutive days. On Day 1, participants were randomized to receive either 1) response time only feedback (i.e., "You completed the block in 80 seconds") or 2) positive social comparative feedback (i.e., "You completed the block in 80 seconds. You were faster than others"). Motor learning was assessed by retention performance, or the change in response time from the first block of Day 1 to the first block on Day 2. Saliva samples were used to genotype for dopamine receptors DRD1, DRD2 and DRD3 and COMT. Individual genes were scored (0-2) and summed to create a polygene score (0-8). Participants were then categorized as having Low (1-4) or High (5-8) dopamine neurotransmission. A significant interaction was found between time, summary polygene group and feedback group (p = 0.048). The Low dopamine group showed greater improvements with response time only feedback versus positive social comparative feedback. The High dopamine group showed similar improvements in response time regardless of feedback type. This suggests that feedback targeting dopaminergic pathways may not be beneficial for individuals with lower dopamine neurotransmission. Our findings suggest that dopaminergic genetics may impact the efficacy of positive social comparative feedback on motor learning in low dopamine genotypes.
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.