Do mistakes at the end of practice impair the ability to learn a skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical practice often causes fatigue that can temporarily decrease motor skill execution and increase errors at the end of a training session. Whether these erroneous last movements impair the ability to remember successful movements performed earlier is unknown. To answer this question, participants performed a visuomotor adaptation task in which they adapted their reaching movements to a 25° counterclockwise rotation of the visual representation of their hand. Unknown to the participants, the rotation was gradually ramped up to 37° over the last 64 trials of the training session and a ±7.5° variation was introduced pseudo-randomly on 38% of these trials (VariedRamp group). This resulted in participants gradually drifting away from 25° while perceiving frequent and large errors. A second group was exposed only to a 25° rotation during the first session (Steady25 group) and a third group was exposed to the ramp up but without the pseudo-random variation (thus drifting away from 25° but without perceiving large errors; GradualRamp group). Adaptation was assessed by measuring movement direction 100ms after movement onset. Results revealed that both the VariedRamp and GradualRamp groups demonstrated a more pronounced clockwise bias at the end of the training session compared to the Steady25 group (p < .05). A similar bias was also apparent for both groups in a no-vision retention test performed 24h later. Our results therefore suggest that erroneous and successful movements performed at the end of a practice session have similar effects on the retention of the movements performed earlier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".