---
res:
  bibo_abstract:
  - <jats:p><jats:bold>Background:</jats:bold> Differential learning (DL) is a motor
    learning method characterized by high amounts of variability during practice and
    is claimed to provide the learner with a higher learning rate than other methods.
    However, some controversy surrounds DL theory, and to date, no overview exists
    that compares the effects of DL to other motor learning methods.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Objective:</jats:bold>
    To evaluate the effectiveness of DL in comparison to other motor learning methods
    in the acquisition and retention phase.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Design:</jats:bold>
    Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Methods:</jats:bold>
    PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until February
    3, 2020. To be included, (1) studies had to be experiments where the DL group
    was compared to a control group engaged in a different motor learning method (lack
    of practice was not eligible), (2) studies had to describe the effects on one
    or more measures of performance in a skill or movement task, and (3) the study
    report had to be published as a full paper in a journal or as a book chapter.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results:</jats:bold>
    Twenty-seven studies encompassing 31 experiments were included. Overall heterogeneity
    for the acquisition phase (post-pre; <jats:italic>I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup>
    = 77%) as well as for the retention phase (retention-pre; <jats:italic>I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup>
    = 79%) was large, and risk of bias was high. The meta-analysis showed an overall
    small effect size of 0.26 [0.10, 0.42] in the acquisition phase for participants
    in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods. In the retention phase,
    an overall medium effect size of 0.61 [0.30, 0.91] was observed for participants
    in the DL group compared to other motor learning methods.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Discussion/Conclusion:</jats:bold>
    Given the large amount of heterogeneity, limited number of studies, low sample
    sizes, low statistical power, possible publication bias, and high risk of bias
    in general, inferences about the effectiveness of DL would be premature. Even
    though DL shows potential to result in greater average improvements between pre-
    and post/retention test compared to non-variability-based motor learning methods,
    more high-quality research is needed before issuing such a statement. For robust
    comparisons on the relative effectiveness of DL to different variability-based
    motor learning methods, scarce and inconclusive evidence was found.</jats:p>@eng
  bibo_authorlist:
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Bruno
      foaf_name: Tassignon, Bruno
      foaf_surname: Tassignon
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Jo
      foaf_name: Verschueren, Jo
      foaf_surname: Verschueren
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Jean-Pierre
      foaf_name: Baeyens, Jean-Pierre
      foaf_surname: Baeyens
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Anne
      foaf_name: Benjaminse, Anne
      foaf_surname: Benjaminse
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Alli
      foaf_name: Gokeler, Alli
      foaf_surname: Gokeler
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Ben
      foaf_name: Serrien, Ben
      foaf_surname: Serrien
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Ron
      foaf_name: Clijsen, Ron
      foaf_surname: Clijsen
  bibo_doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.533033
  bibo_volume: 12
  dct_date: 2021^xs_gYear
  dct_isPartOf:
  - http://id.crossref.org/issn/1664-1078
  dct_language: eng
  dct_publisher: Frontiers Media SA@
  dct_subject:
  - General Psychology
  dct_title: An Exploratory Meta-Analytic Review on the Empirical Evidence of Differential
    Learning as an Enhanced Motor Learning Method@
...