Table 4 Direct effects of observational practice in comparison to control groups

From: A systematic review of observational practice for adaptation of reaching movements

Authors

Control M (SD)

Obs_Cong M (SD)

Obs_IncongM (SD)

Bernardi et al. 51

3.5 (0.6)

2.8 (0.8)

4.3 (1.9)

Brown et al. 41

13.1 (1.6)

4.9 (1.5)

16.6 (1.3)

Brown et al. 42

15.9 (3.8)

14.1 (3.0)

18.8 (2.7)

Larssen et al. 88

22.9 (1.1)°

19.7 (1.6)°

/

Lei, et al. 58

26.7 (0.9)°

19.7 (1.1)°

/

Mattar and Gribble45

15.0 (3.4)

11.2 (4.7)

17.6 (4.3)

McGregor et al. 53

31.5 (8.8)

/

41.0 (9.5)

McGregor et al. 46

3.7 (7.9)

/

36.9 (10.8)

McGregor et al. 52

32.2 (8.3)

/

41.1 (9.6)

McGregor, et al. 43

31.5 (9.1)

23.4 (6.07)

/

McGregor, et al. 47

9.4 (2.6)

/

11.5 (3.4)

Ong et al. 57

22.1 (9.4)°

6.1 (9.1)°

 

Ong et al. 56

19.6 (12.0)°

−1.2 (6.3)°

 

Wanda et al. 48

/

19.9 (7.0)

25.2 (4.4)

  1. Error scores (mean and SD) are detailed for the different groups. Smaller errors for the congruent, and larger errors for the incongruent learning group as compared to the control group indicate direct effects from observational practice.
  2. M Mean, SD Standard deviation, Control Control group (rest or observational practice of an unlearnable environment), Obs_Cong Observational practice group with congruent adaptation stimulus, Obs_Incong Observational practice group with incongruent adaptation stimulus; All means and standard deviations are reported in millimetres (mm) or degree (°).