ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Motor Skill Learning of a Racing Video Game With Intuitive versus Inverted and Random Controls.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimMotor skill learning relies on increasing proficiency to translate sensory feedback to produce an updated motor command. This experience-dependent process allows our automatic movements to lead to an expected result-this is known as an "internal model." Video games provide a structured environment for studying these processes, as they typically develop stable sensory-motor relationships (or internal models) within the brain. PURPOSE: This study examined how disrupting these internal models with two different non-intuitive joystick control schemes affected short-term motor learning during a video game task.
methodEighty healthy right-handed adults (males: n = 49 and females: n = 31) completed three blocks of five timed laps using normal controls (N1), inverted or random controls (IC/RC), and then returned to normal controls (N2). Half the subjects used inverted controls, while the other half used random controls during the IC/RC block. Performance was measured through lap times, and error was manually quantified by recording wall contacts. FINDING: Results showed that all participants improved from lap 1 to 5 within each testing block. The inverted control group had significantly slower initial lap times and more wall contacts during the first lap of the IC/RC and N2 blocks. There was a trend (p = 0.06) for the IC group to improve more than the RC group from lap 1 to lap 5 in the IC/RC block. Additionally, for the IC group, the first lap of block 3 was significantly slower than where they left off before the IC block (p = 0.002). The random control condition did not experience this same increase in lap time and wall contacts during lap 1 of the N2 testing block. Instead of experiencing anterograde interference, the random control group may have been subject to de novo learning taking place.
conclusionThis study therefore highlights the flexibility of motor learning systems and supports the accompaniment of interference with motor adaptation.
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.