Learning progress (linear slope of progress-test scores) differs significantly between simple and complex training groups for complex subtasks but not the 1:1 subtask¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Training progress slopes differed between the simple and complex training groups for complex subtasks (p = 0.0041) but not for the 1:1 frequency ratio subtask (p = 5190). → Hehl 2026

Evidence¶

Hehl 2026¶

Hehl, M., Toyonaga, T., Carson, R. E., Dupont, P., Van Laere, K., Swinnen, S. P. & Cuypers, K. (2026). No significant changes in synaptic density and gray matter volume following motor learning—a pilot study. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00451-5

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Wilcoxon rank sum comparison of individual learning-progress slopes in the 22-participant pilot, significant for complex subtasks and not for the 1:1 subtask (p = 0.5190, W = 71). The article reports "median difference = −0.0267" with a 95% CI of −0.0447 to −0.0071.

"Training progress, as expressed using the linear slope of the progress test scores over time, was significantly different between the simple and the complex training group for the complex subtasks ( p = 0.0041, W = 18, median difference = −0.0267, 95% CI = −0.0447 to −0.0071"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Four weeks of bimanual tracking training significantly improves 1:1 subtask performance with training time, with no group effect on the 1:1 task — related
• On complex subtasks, both training time and the group-by-time interaction significantly predict performance, with the complex group better at later progress tests — a broader claim this one bears on
• No significant longitudinal changes in gray matter volume or cortical thickness in the visuomotor VOIs, and no associations between GM metrics and learning progress