Within-subject trial-to-trial variability exceeds between-subject variability across visuomotor, detection, and motor tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · 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? Across the three tasks, within-subject variability exceeded between-subject variability (about 12 times in the visuomotor task, about 6 times in detection, and about 24 times in the no-feedback motor task). → Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño 2025 q3 i? Within-subject variability in the visuomotor task did not reliably predict interception performance, except for GTD variability, which was positively associated with performance. → Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño 2025¶

Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño. (2025). Dissociable sensory, motor, and visuomotor predictive functions. npj Science of Learning 10:85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00377-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison of trial-wise within-subject variance against between-subject variance across the visuomotor, detection, and motor variability tasks, using paired t-tests. The motor task showed the largest effect, with endpoint dispersion variability "roughly 24 times greater than between-s ubject variability".

"On average, within-subject variability was ~12 times larger than between-subject variability, revealing the dynamic and highly variable nature ofindividual response proﬁles."

Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño 2025 (2)¶

Inmaculada Márquez & Mario Treviño. (2025). Dissociable sensory, motor, and visuomotor predictive functions. npj Science of Learning 10:85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00377-4

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Correlational analysis relating within-subject variability measures (vU, IDD, GTD, GUD) to interception performance; no significant associations were found except var(GTD), positive after FDR correction (q < 0.0001).

"Within-subject variability in the visuomotor task did not reliably predict interception performance, except for GTD variability, which was positively associated with performance"

Discussion¶

Individual differences in sensory detection and motor variability do not reliably predict visuomotor adaptation, showing weak cross-task predictive power — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`within-subject-variability-dominates`
`title`	`Within-subject trial-to-trial variability exceeds between-subject variability across visuomotor, detection, and motor tasks`
`description`	`Within-subject trial-to-trial variability exceeds between-subject variability across visuomotor, detection, and motor tasks`
`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`	2 — `inmaculada-márquez-mario-treviño-2025`, `inmaculada-márquez-mario-treviño-2025-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.