↓ Skip to main content

Transfer of Motor Learning Is More Pronounced in Proximal Compared to Distal Effectors in Upper Extremities

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Transfer of Motor Learning Is More Pronounced in Proximal Compared to Distal Effectors in Upper Extremities
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tore K. Aune, Morten A. Aune, Rolf P. Ingvaldsen, Beatrix Vereijken

Abstract

The current experiment investigated generalizability of motor learning in proximal versus distal effectors in upper extremities. Twenty-eight participants were divided into three groups: training proximal effectors, training distal effectors, and no training control group (CG). Performance was tested pre- and post-training for specific learning and three learning transfer conditions: (1) bilateral learning transfer between homologous effectors, (2) lateral learning transfer between non-homologous effectors, and (3) bilateral learning transfer between non-homologous effectors. With respect to specific learning, both training groups showed significant, similar improvement for the trained proximal and distal effectors, respectively. In addition, there was significant learning transfer to all three transfer conditions, except for bilateral learning transfer between non-homologous effectors for the distal training group. Interestingly, the proximal training group showed significantly larger learning transfer to other effectors compared to the distal training group. The CG did not show significant improvements from pre- to post-test. These results show that learning is partly effector independent and generalizable to different effectors, even though transfer is suboptimal compared to specific learning. Furthermore, there is a proximal-distal gradient in generalizability, in that learning transfer from trained proximal effectors is larger than from trained distal effectors, which is consistent with neuroanatomical differences in activation of proximal and distal muscles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 7 17%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Psychology 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,208,958
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,767
of 34,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,877
of 324,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#360
of 599 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 324,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 599 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.