Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Modified Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT).

(A) Participants were instructed to press the key on a custom button box that corresponded to the top square that matched the target (bottom) square (B) Sequence-specific skill (SKILL) was calculated as the mean difference in response time (RT) between repeated (white) and random (gray) sequences for test blocks at each time point.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Immobilized participants complied with the immobilization procedure.

Participants wore activity monitors on both wrists throughout the six-hour immobilization period. Activity counts in the immobilized (target) arm were significantly reduced compared to the non-immobilized (nontarget) limb in immobilized participants (t = 9.98, p < .0001).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Activity counts ANOVA results.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Normalized SRTT response time across performance assessment timepoints.

Values less than one (black dashed line) indicate faster than baseline performance. Open circles represent 50 random button presses, and closed circles represent 180 sequenced button presses. One test block occurred in the morning (BL Test) to assess baseline motor performance. The evening session consisted of five training blocks (Training) with test blocks before (PRE Test) and after (POST Test). Error bars represent standard error.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

General motor performance increased with task exposure in both groups.

Normalized response time significantly decreased across training regardless of immobilization condition (F = 57.5, p < .0001). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ****p < .0001.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Sequence-specific skill did not change after training and there was not evidence of an effect of immobilization.

Neither (A) Skill Score nor (B) Interference score significantly changed across task exposure for either group.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

SRTT ANOVA results.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Immobilization did not significantly influence performance of the right, non-immobilized hand.

(A) Response time decreased from BL to PRE timepoints across participants (F = 103.2, p < .0001), but was not immobilization-specific. (B) Skill score did not significantly change from BL to PRE timepoints across groups.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

Nontarget hand motor performance.

More »

Table 3 Expand