Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 614

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain

Open access
Hardwick, Robert M., Rottschy, Claudia, Miall, R. Chris, Eickhoff, Simon B.·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies have improved our understanding of which brain structures are involved in motor learning. Despite this, questions remain regarding the areas that contribute consistently across paradigms with different task demands. For instance, sensorimotor tasks focus on learning novel movement kinematics and dynamics, while serial response time task (SRTT) variants focus on sequence learning. These differing task demands are likely to elicit quantifiably different patterns of neural activity on top of a potentially consistent core network. The current study identified consistent activations across 70 motor learning experiments using activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. A global analysis of all tasks revealed a bilateral cortical-subcortical network consistently underlying motor learning across tasks. Converging activations were revealed in the dorsal premotor cortex, supplementary motor cortex, primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, superior parietal lobule, thalamus, putamen and cerebellum. These activations were broadly consistent across task specific analyses that separated sensorimotor tasks and SRTT variants. Contrast analysis indicated that activity in the basal ganglia and cerebellum was significantly stronger for sensorimotor tasks, while activity in cortical structures and the thalamus was significantly stronger for SRTT variants. Additional conjunction analyses then indicated that the left dorsal premotor cortex was activated across all analyses considered, even when controlling for potential motor confounds. The highly consistent activation of the left dorsal premotor cortex suggests it is a critical node in the motor learning network.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.020

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 134 references

Cited by

See all 614

Metadata

Authors
Hardwick, R. M., Rottschy, C., Miall, R. C., & Eickhoff, S. B.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
67
Pages
283-297
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992215919
Cited by
614
References
134
FWCI
13.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.020
The paper
Hardwick, R. M., Rottschy, C., Miall, R. C., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2013). A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.020

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.