↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, January 2018
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High variability impairs motor learning regardless of whether it affects task performance
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, January 2018
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 35%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 24%
Neuroscience 18 23%
Sports and Recreations 10 13%
Psychology 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#505,554
of 15,606,578 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#56
of 5,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,162
of 278,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#3
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,578 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 5,951 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 278,322 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 125 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 97% of its contemporaries.