An intervening declarative cued-recall task placed late in finger-tapping training does not reduce the post-rest performance gain (Experiment 1)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In Experiment 1, the cued-recall and vowel groups showed no significant difference in post-rest RT gain despite a large RI-inducing design. → Mohan W. Gupta and Timothy C. Rickard 2025
Evidence¶
Mohan W. Gupta and Timothy C. Rickard 2025¶
Mohan W. Gupta and Timothy C. Rickard. (2025). The Effects of Declarative Learning on Early and Late Motor Skill Learning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00386-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Experiment 1: 98 right-handed undergraduates randomly assigned to a cued-recall (n=50) or vowel-counting (n=48) group; 15-sequence trials with 10 s breaks, 17 training and 2 test trials, 4-minute intervening task. The post-rest gain comparison "we found no sig nificant effect: t(96) = 0.1, p = .91, d = .015, BF01 = 4.68". Bayes factor favored the null.
"Based on the mean RT difference between the last two training trials and the two test trials, we found no sig nificant effect: t(96) = 0.1, p = .91, d = .015, BF01 = 4.68"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A declarative task placed early in training is associated with a small, transient reduction in post-rest gain (Experiment 3), with only weak statistical support — related
- Neither consolidation-disruption nor breakdown-of-inhibition hypotheses are supported for the finger-tapping task; only tenuous support exists for the resource hypothesis — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Even a substantially increased declarative-load intervening task placed late in training does not impair the post-rest gain (Experiment 2) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Trial-level reactive inhibition (progressively larger sequence RTs within trials) emerges during training and dissipates across rest breaks in the FTT — related
- No significant association exists between intervening-task performance and post-rest motor gain in any experiment — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
late-declarative-task-no-impairment-experiment-1 |
title |
An intervening declarative cued-recall task placed late in finger-tapping training does not reduce the post-rest performance gain (Experiment 1) |
description |
An intervening declarative cued-recall task placed late in finger-tapping training does not reduce the post-rest performance gain (Experiment 1) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mohan-w-gupta-and-timothy-c-rickard-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.