Compatible and Incompatible groups performed comparably across learning, indicating that the basis of compatibility in implicit MSL is shared movement transitions rather than ordinal positions.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In experiment 1, Compatible and Incompatible groups showed no difference in performance at the start of session 4. → Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025 q3 i? The article concludes the determining factor of compatibility is the movement transitions shared with the previously learned sequence, not the ordinal position. → Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025 (2) q3 i? Exception: at the baseline of experiment 2, the Incompatible group performed lower than the Compatible group before training. → Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025 (3)

Evidence¶

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025¶

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes. (2025). Faster implicit motor sequence learning of new sequences compatible in terms of movement transitions. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00296-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Post hoc test at the start of session 4 in experiment 1: "the Compatible and Incompatible groups showed no difference in performance (p = 1.)", despite their sequences sharing the same movement-transition overlap and differing in ordinal-position overlap. No effect size printed.

"The performance in the Same group was significantly higher compared to all other groups (allp < 0.001). Only the Compatible and Incompatible groups showed no difference in performance (p = 1.)."

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025 (2)¶

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes. (2025). Faster implicit motor sequence learning of new sequences compatible in terms of movement transitions. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00296-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Authors' interpretation in the Discussion of experiment 1: "the determining factor of compatibility is not the ordinal position, but rather the movement transitions shared with the previously learned sequence", contrasting with King et al.'s explicit-MSL ordinal-position finding.

"At the same time, there was no difference in the performance between the Compatible and Incompatible group evident, thus the determining factor of compatibility is not the ordinal position, but rather the movement transitions shared with the previously learned sequence."

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes 2025 (3)¶

Susanne Dyck & Christian Klaes. (2025). Faster implicit motor sequence learning of new sequences compatible in terms of movement transitions. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00296-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Baseline (session 1 start) in experiment 2: "the performance of the Incompatible group being lower than in the Compatible group" (p = 0.012); all groups reached comparable performance by the end of session 1. No effect size printed.

"Post hoc tests revealed that only the performance in the Compatible and Incompatible group significantly differed ( p = 0.012), with the performance of the Incompatible group being lower than in the Compatible group, while all other comparisons were not significant"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• After three prior training sessions, implicit learning of sequences compatible in movement transitions (both Compatible and Incompatible groups) is faster than learning a completely new sequence in experiment 1. — related
• By the end of the final training session, Compatible and Incompatible groups reach the performance level of the Same group, whereas the New group does not, in both experiments. — related
• In experiment 1, novel movement transitions were performed better in the Compatible and Incompatible groups than in the New group, while initially learned transitions were retained better in the Same group. — related
• Switching from a trained implicit motor sequence to a new, compatible, or incompatible sequence significantly reduces sequence-specific performance compared with continuing the same sequence, in both experiments. — related