ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Ipsilateral transfer of motor skill from upper to lower limb in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intermanual transfer refers to the improvement of motor skill in an untrained contralateral limb following unilateral limb practice. However, it remains uncertain whether motor skill in the lower limb (LL) can improve as a result of practice with the unilateral upper limb (UL). Forty-five healthy participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) UL group, which practiced reaching movement (RM) sequences with the non-dominant left upper limb; or (2) switches observation (SO) group, which observed the same RM sequences; or (3) nature observation (NO) group, which observed nature movies. RM performance with the LL was assessed before, immediately after, and 24 h post-intervention. Response time of RM sequences was faster in the UL group than the NO group in the posttest. Response time improved significantly in the posttest and retest compared to the pretest in all groups, but it improved significantly in the retest compared to the posttest only in the NO group. The percentage of fails to reach within 1 s decreased across all time points in all groups. The combination of practice of the RM sequence with the UL and the cognitive engagement during RM sequence observation contributes to ipsilateral transfer from the UL to the LL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.