Trial reportPsychological research2026
'Substitute' knowledge of results provided through virtual reality enhances motor imagery-based learning.
Trial report in Psychological research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Improvements in motor performance achieved through motor imagery, the mental rehearsal of movement, are typically smaller than an equivalent dose of physical practice. One reason for this difference may be lack of feedback during motor imagery, integral to refining the motor plan, including knowledge of results. Here, we tested whether visual feedback provided via virtual reality impacted learning of a complex novel skill using motor imagery. Healthy novice participants (N = 48) were randomly assigned to one of three groups and engaged in four sessions of motor imagery practice of a golf putting task in a virtual environment. Following each motor imagery trial, participants observed one of three types of visual feedback: perfect feedback (100% success), erroneous feedback (30% errors, 70% success), or no feedback (control). Performance, measured by percentage of holed putts (%Success), mean radial error, and bivariate variable error, was assessed during three physical test blocks: before (pre), after (post), and minimum 24h after imagery practice (retention). Linear mixed effects models and accompanying Cohen's d effect sizes conducted to quantify changes in performance revealed improvements in %Success by all groups at both the post-test (particularly the erroneous feedback group) and retention test with no effects related to mean radial error or bivariate variable error. Findings suggest that supplementing motor imagery with visual feedback may lead to greater task success. Future research should explore impacts on movement quality (e.g., arm, trunk kinematics) and trajectory-based learning. Overall, this work has implications related to the use of virtual reality to enhance the effectiveness of motor imagery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635805What 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.