Multidimensional Motor Sequence Learning Is Impaired in Older But Not Younger or Middle-Aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify which characteristics of a multidimensional sequence containing motor, spatial, and temporal elements would be most salient for motor sequence learning and whether age might differentially affect this learning. SUBJECTS: Younger (n=11, mean age=26.0 years), middle-aged (n=13, mean age=50.7 years), and older (n=11, mean age=77.5 years) adults who were neurologically intact participated in the study. METHODS: Participants practiced a sequencing task with repeated motor, spatial, and temporal dimensions for 2 days; on a separate third day, participants completed retention and interference tests designed to assess sequence learning and which elements of the sequence were learned. The mean median response time for each block of responses was used to assess motor sequence learning. RESULTS: Younger and middle-aged adults demonstrated sequence-specific motor learning at retention testing via faster response times for repeated sequences than random sequences; both of these groups showed interference for the motor dimension. In contrast, older adults demonstrated nonspecific learning (ie, similar improvements in response time for both random and repeated sequences). These findings were shown by a lack of difference between random and repeated sequence performance in the older adult group both at retention testing and during interference tests. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Our data suggest that, when younger and middle-aged adults practice sequences containing multiple dimensions of movement, the motor element is most important for motor learning. The absence of sequence-specific change demonstrated by an older adult group that was healthy suggests an age-related impairment in motor learning that may have profound implications for rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".