↓ Skip to main content

American Physiological Society

High variability impairs motor learning regardless of whether it affects task performance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
62 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
High variability impairs motor learning regardless of whether it affects task performance
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, September 2017
DOI 10.1152/jn.00158.2017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Cardis, Maura Casadio, Rajiv Ranganathan

Abstract

Motor variability plays an important role in motor learning, although the exact mechanisms of how variability affects learning is not well understood. Recent evidence suggests that motor variability may have different effects on learning in redundant tasks, depending on whether it is present in the task space (where it affects task performance), or in the null space (where it has no effect on task performance). Here we examined the effect of directly introducing null and task space variability using a manipulandum during the learning of a motor task. Participants learned a bimanual shuffleboard task for 2 days, where their goal was to slide a virtual puck as close as possible towards a target. Critically, the distance traveled by the puck was determined by the sum of the left and right hand velocities, which meant that there was redundancy in the task. Participants were divided into five groups - based on both the dimension in which the variability was introduced and the amount of variability that was introduced during training. Results showed that although all groups were able to reduce error with practice, learning was affected more by the amount of variability introduced rather than the dimension in which variability was introduced. Specifically, groups with higher movement variability during practice showed larger errors at the end of practice compared to groups that had low variability during learning. These results suggest that although introducing variability can increase exploration of new solutions, this may adversely affect the ability to retain the learned solution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 27%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 31 23%
Engineering 23 17%
Sports and Recreations 12 9%
Psychology 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 34 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2022.
All research outputs
#904,031
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#79
of 8,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,536
of 329,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#3
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,445 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.