The effect of implicit learning on motor performance under psychological pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Motor skills learned implicitly should be less susceptible to deterioration under psychological pressure (i.e., choking) than skills learned more explicitly. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated that prediction. A systematic search was conducted for articles that had participants learn a motor skill implicitly relative to a comparison group and had both groups perform the skill under low-and high-pressure conditions. Ten studies with a median of nine participants/group met inclusion criteria. Seven of ten studies reported an advantage of learning a motor skill implicitly when performing under psychological pressure. Moreover, a multivariate random-effects metaanalysis revealed that participants who learned a motor skill implicitly performed better under a high-pressure condition than a low-pressure condition, Hedges' g av = −1.17, 95% lower CI [−1.61], upper CI [−0.74], whereas participants in the comparison group performed similarly between conditions, Hedges' g av = 0.19, 95% lower CI [ −0.33], upper CI [ 0.71]. For the implicit learning group, a funnel plot of the relationship between effect size and standard error showed an asymmetrical distribution and a significant relationship, indicating bias. In conclusion, results confirm the prediction that implicit motor learning benefits performance under pressure. However, this effect might be distorted by bias and driven by underpowered studies, likely causing it to be overestimated. We suggest the advantage of learning a motor skill implicitly vesus explicitly on performance under pressure be assumed to be moderately sized, pending future research, and encourage preregistered studies with larger sample sizes to estimate the effect more accurately.

Conducting systematic reviews of applied interventions: A comment on Cabral et al. (2022).

“…According to Liabo et al (2017), to assess the quality of eligible articles, it is important to consider (a) the relevance of each article's topic to the research question, (b) the appropriateness of the study type to the research question, and (c) the soundness of the study methods. Given that there have been several articles questioning the methodological practices in implicit-learning research, Cabral et al (2022) needed to carefully evaluate the methodological soundness of the included articles. As concerns relating to comparison groups represent a broader issue for sport psychology and motor learning research as well (see Bobrownicki et al, 2021), such advice would apply more generally too.…”

“…In addition to these concerns regarding population and intervention, we contend that the development of PICO(T)-informed objectives would also have assisted Cabral et al (2022) in recognizing and accounting for critical issues and debates in the implicit-learning literature relating to comparison groups. Although unacknowledged in Cabral et al’s systematic review, there exist several significant methodological issues concerning comparison groups that have been (a) explicitly laid out and debated in the implicit-learning literature (e.g., comparison groups are typically provided instructions of much greater quantity, lesser quality, and different meaning; Bobrownicki et al, 2018), (b) demonstrated empirically (Bobrownicki et al, 2015), and (c) proposed as likely explanations for the previously inconsistent findings (Bobrownicki et al, 2019).…”

“…The unrepresentative comparisons that characterize the past three decades’ worth of research are thought to have limited ecological validity, influenced effect sizes, and impacted resulting recommendations for practice (Bobrownicki et al, 2018). Between these long-standing, well-known issues and the recognized significance of control conditions for evaluating applied interventions (Bobrownicki et al, 2021), comparison groups demanded careful consideration in the systematic review of implicit learning of Cabral et al (2022) that they never received. While we agree with Cabral et al that the inconsistencies in the implicit-learning literature required clarification, if they wanted to achieve this, the authors needed to develop a research question and corresponding set of objectives that appropriately considered: PICO(T); applied practice concerns; and the current findings, issues, and debates in the literature.…”

“…

In their recent systematic review and meta-analysis, Cabral et al (2022) explored the effects of implicit motor learning under pressure conditions. As a stated focus, they aimed to address the previously inconsistent findings in the literature and provide clarity to researchers and practitioners.

…”

“…Without a careful and critical approach that includes such components, systematic reviews can generate unproductive and misleading findings that hinder, or even obstruct research and practice (Tod et al, 2021). It is with these procedural and methodological points in mind that we comment specifically on the recent systematic review of implicit learning by Cabral et al (2022), with consideration of its contribution to the literature and utility for practice, while also presenting key principles to consider when systematically reviewing applied interventions in sport psychology more generally.…”