Learning Implicitly: Effects of Task and Severity After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Disparate results have been reported on the implicit learning ability of adults with stroke. Objective. This study aimed to elucidate the relationships between stroke severity and the task employed to test implicit motor learning. Methods. Twenty-eight patients with chronic stroke were divided according to stroke severity using the Orpington prognostic score into those with mild (n = 16, score < 3.2) or moderate stroke (n = 12, score 3.2-5.0). Seventeen healthy individuals served as matched controls (HC). All participants practiced 2 implicit learning tasks, the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) and Serial Hand Movement (SHM). Results. A group-bytask-by-block interaction (P = .000) demonstrated differences across the experimental factors. Post hoc analyses revealed differences between groups and tasks. Greater change in the speed of responding was exhibited for the SHM than the SRT task by the HC and mild groups; however, the moderate group did not demonstrate a between-task difference. Conclusion. Both stroke severity and motor task influenced the magnitude of implicit learning across acquisition, which suggests for the first time that different tasks may yield disparate implicit learning outcomes in the same population. Additionally, the impact of stroke severity may be important when assessing residual implicit motor learning capability. The combination of these 2 factors helps explain previously reported contradictory findings and may inform future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".