The scope of preserved procedural memory in amnesia

May combine two claims.

At time 3, both amnesics (t = 3.08, P = 0.01) and comparison subjects (t = 2.82, P = 0.02) showed significant retention of the weaving skill.

“At this follow-up, the amnesics (t = 3.08, P = 0.01) and the comparison subjects (t = 2.82, P = 0.02) showed significant retention of the weaving skill.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The hippocampus was particularly atrophic in the anoxic subjects.

“The hippocampus was particularly atrophic in these anoxics.”

May combine two claims.

The amnesic group reduced the number of errors from baseline to the last trial of time 1 (t = 3.47, P < 0.01), and from baseline to time 2 (t = 2.27, P = 0.05).

“The amnesic group reduced the number of errors from baseline to the last trial of time 1 (t = 3.47, P < 0.01), and from baseline to time 2 (t = 2.27, P = 0.05).”

May combine two claims.

The amnesic subjects' cognitive abilities were generally well-preserved, with the exception of severe memory impairment.

“These findings show generally well-preserved cognitive abilities of these subjects, with the exception of their severe memory impairment (Tables 1 and 2).”

May combine two claims.

The amnesics committed significantly more errors at baseline (t = 3.3, P < 0.01) and at the last trial of time 1 (t = 2.36, P < 0.05) than the comparison group.

“The amnesics committed significantly more errors at baseline (t = 3.3, P < 0.01) and at the last (t = 2.36, P < 0.05) trial of time 1 than the comparison group.”

May combine two claims.

The 2 x 2 ANOVA demonstrated a significant retention effect (F = 19.3, P < 0.01), significant group effect (F = 36.49, P < 0.01) and significant retention x group interaction (F = 4.94, P = 0.04) for the weaving task at time 3.

“The 2  2 ANOVA demonstrated a significant retention effect (F = 19.3,P < 0.01), significant group effect (F = 36.49,P < 0.01) and significant retention  group interaction (F = 4.94, P = 0.04).”

May combine two claims.

At baseline, the frequency of errors ranged from 0 to 7 (mean = 3.4, SD = 2.8) for the amnesic group, and from 0 to 3 (mean = 0.48, SD = 0.82) for the comparison group.

“At baseline, the frequency of errors ranged from 0 to 7 (mean = 3.4,SD = 2.8) for the amnesic group, and from 0 to 3 (mean = 0.48, SD = 0.82) for the comparison group.”

May combine two claims.

Both amnesic and comparison groups significantly reduced the amount of time needed to perform the weaving task (amnesics t = 6.58, P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 6.17, P < 0.01).

“Both groups significantly reduced the amount of time needed to perform the task (amnesics t = 6.58,P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 6.17,P < 0.01).”

May combine two claims.

No significant difference in number of errors was found between groups at time 2 (t = 2.14, P = 0.06) or time 3 (t = 2.05, P = 0.07).

“No significant difference in number of errors was found between groups at time 2 (t = 2.14, P = 0.06) or time 3 (t = 2.05, P = 0.07).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The mean interval between time 1 and time 3 was 85 days (SD = 51.8) for the amnesic group and 57 days (SD = 5.3) for the comparison group.

“the mean interval between time 1 and time 3 for the qmnesic group was 85 days (SD = 51.8) and for the comparison group was 57 days (SD = 5.3)”

May combine two claims.

The 2 x 2 ANOVA showed significant retention effects (F = 78.07, P < 0.01), significant retention x group interaction (F = 10.77, P < 0.01), and significant group effects (F = 40.27, P < 0.01) for the weaving task.

“The 2  2 ANOVA showed significant retention effects (F = 78.07,P < 0.01), significant retention  group interaction (F = 10.77,P < 0.01), and significant group effects (F = 40.27;P < 0.01).”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

When using ANOVA for repeated measures with baseline competency as covariate, the analyses showed no significant learning x aetiology effect for the HSE and anoxia groups.

“When we used the ANOVA for repeated measures with trial 2 of time 1 as the first level of analyses, and baseline competency as the covariate, the analyses showed no significant learning  aetiology effect.”

May combine two claims.

Both groups demonstrated learning on the geometric figures task (amnesics t = 3.6, P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 3.31, P < 0.01).

“Both groups demonstrated learning (amnesics t = 3.6, P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 3.31, P < 0.01).”

May combine two claims.

Multiple regression analyses revealed that age and education were not significant predictors of learning, retention at time 2, nor retention at time 3 of the geometric figures task, control stick task and spatial sequence task.

“Multiple regression analyses revealed that age and education were not significant predictors of learning, retention at time 2, nor retention at time 3 of the geometric figures task, control stick task and spatial sequence task.”

May combine two claims.

After adjusting for age and education, the independent variable group was not a good predictor of learning, retention at time 2 nor retention at time 3 of any of the tasks.

“After adjusting for these factors, the independent variable group was not a good predictor of learning, retention at time 2 nor retention at time 3 of any of the tasks.”

May combine two claims.

Both groups demonstrated learning on the control stick task (amnesics t = 6.85, P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 6.19, P < 0.01).

“Both groups demonstrated learning (amnesics t = 6.85,P < 0.01; comparison subjects t = 6.19,P < 0.01).”

May combine two claims.

After adjusting for age and education, the independent variable group was a good predictor of learning (F = 2.98, P = 0.047) and retention at time 2 (F = 3.54, P = 0.03) of the weaving task.

“After adjusting for these demographic factors, the independent variable group was a good predictor of learning (F = 2.98, P = 0.047) and retention at time 2 (F = 3.54, P = 0.03)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The overall rate of false alarms per trial ranged between zero and eight in both amnesics and comparison groups.

“The overall rate of false alarms per trial ranged between zero and eight in both amnesics and comparison groups.”

May combine two claims.

A 2 x 2 ANOVA showed significant learning effects (F = 67.42, P < 0.01), significant group effects (F = 6.23, P = 0.02) and no significant learning x group interaction (F = 1.39, P = 0.25) for the control stick task.

“A 2  2 ANOVA showed significant learning effects (F = 67.42,P < 0.01), significant group effects (F = 6.23,P = 0.02) and no significant learning  group interaction (F = 1.39,P = 0.25).”

May combine two claims.

Multiple regression analyses revealed that age and education were not significant predictors of learning (F = 0.18, P = 0.32), retention at time 2 (F = 0.02, P = 1) nor retention at time 3 (F = 0.99, P = 0.39) of the weaving task.

“Multiple regression analyses revealed that age and education were not significant predictors of learning (F = 0.18, P = 0.32), retention at time 2 (F = 0.02, P = 1) nor retention at time 3 (F = 0.99, P = 0.39) of the weaving task.”

May combine two claims.

On tasks 2, 3, 4 and 5, no aetiology x learning interaction nor aetiology effect were found on the 2x2 ANOVA analyses.

“On tasks 2, 3, 4 and 5, no aetiology  learning interaction nor aetiology effect were found on the 2  2 ANOVA analyses.”

May combine two claims.

Both groups significantly increased the volume of water successfully poured (amnesics t = -2.79, P = 0.02; comparison subjects t = -4.5, P < 0.01).

“Both groups significantly increased the volume of water successfully poured (amnesics t = À2.79,P = 0.02; comparison subjects t = À4.5, P < 0.01).”

May combine two claims.

At time 3, neither the amnesics (t = 0.35, P = 0.74) nor the comparison subjects (t = -1.93, P = 0.08) showed a significant difference from baseline.

“At time 3, neither the amnesics (t = 0.35, P = 0.74) nor the comparison subjects (t = À1.93,P = 0.08) showed a significant difference from baseline.”

May combine two claims.

The 2 x 2 ANOVA demonstrated a significant retention effect (F = 10.26, P < 0.01), no group effects (F = 1.92, P = 0.18) and no significant retention x group interaction (F = 0.34, P = 0.57) for the geometric figures task at time 3.

“The 2  2 ANOVA demonstrated a significant retention effect (F = 10.26,P < 0.01), no group effects (F = 1.92,P = 0.18) and no significant retention  group interaction (F = 0.34, P = 0.57).”

May combine two claims.

A 2 x 2 ANOVA showed significant learning effects (F = 20.13, P < 0.01), significant group effects (F = 4.62, P = 0.04) and no significant learning x group interaction (F = 0.62, P = 0.44) for the geometric figures task.

“A 2  2 ANOVA showed significant learning effects (F = 20.13,P < 0.01), significant group effects (F = 4.62, P = 0.04) and no significant learning  group interaction (F = 0.62, P = 0.44).”

May combine two claims.

Significant learning was demonstrated by the comparison subjects (t = 7.02, P < 0.01) as well as the amnesics (t = 2.46, P = 0.04).

“Significant learning was demonstrated by the comparison subjects (t = 7.02, P < 0.01) as well as the amnesics (t = 2.46, P = 0.04).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

One amnesic and one comparison subject were not able to perform a successful trial after 20 consecutive trials.

“One amnesic and one comparison subject were not able to perform a successful trial after 20 consecutive trials.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

The ANOVA for repeated measures with baseline competency as covariate showed no significant retention x group interaction (F = 0.69, P = 0.42) for the geometric figures task at time 3.

“The ANOVA for repeated measures with trial 2 of time 1 and trial 1 of time 3 as the levels of analysis, and baseline competency as the covariate, showed no significant retention  group interaction (F = 0.69, P = 0.42).”

May combine two claims.

On paired-samples t tests, the 24 h retention level nearly reached significance for both the comparison group (t = 2.07, P = 0.05) and the amnesic group (t = 2.1, P = 0.06).

“On t tests for paired samples, the retention level nearly reached significance for both the comparison group (t = 2.07, P = 0.05) and the amnesic group (t = 2.1, P = 0.06).”

May combine two claims.

An ANOVA for repeated measures with baseline competency as covariate showed no significant retention x group interaction at time 2 (F = 0.27, P = 0.6) or time 3 (F = 0.19, P = 0.67).

“An ANOVA for repeated measures, with trial 2 of time 1 as the first level of analyses, and baseline competency as the covariate, showed no significant retention  group interaction at time 2 (F = 0.27, P = 0.6) or time 3 (F = 0.19, P = 0.67).”

May combine two claims.

The 2 x 2 ANOVA showed significant retention effects (F = 13.17, P < 0.01), no significant group effects (F = 3.61, P = 0.07) and no significant retention x group interaction (F = 1.01, P = 0.32) for the geometric figures task.

“The 2  2 ANOVA showed significant retention effects (F = 13.17,P < 0.01).This test did not show significant group effects (F = 3.61, P = 0.07) nor significant retention  group interaction (F = 1.01,P = 0.32).”

May combine two claims.

There were no significant differences between groups, or within groups over time, in the number of points available for sampling.

“There were no significant differences between groups, or within groups over time in the number of points available for sampling.”

May combine two claims.

The 24 h retention level of DFT reached significance for the amnesic group (t = 3.05, P = 0.01) and the comparison group (t = 2.38, P = 0.03).

“On t tests for paired samples, the retention level of the DFT reached significance for the amnesic group (t = 3.05, P = 0.01) and the comparison group (t = 2.38, P = 0.03).”

May combine two claims.

Amnesic subjects demonstrated more improvement across trials (at time 1) and better delayed retention (at times 2 and 3) than the non-amnesic subjects on the weaving task.

“Amnesic subjects demonstrated more improvement across trials (at time 1) and better delayed retention (at times 2 and 3) than the non-amnesic subjects.”

May combine two claims.

Although the amnesic subjects demonstrated learning on all tasks, the delayed retention of the weaving skill and the ability to trace moving geometric figures contrasted with limited retention of the remaining skills.

“Although the amnesic subjects demonstrated learning on all tasks, the delayed retention of the weaving skill and the ability to trace moving geometric figures contrasted with limited retention of the remaining skills.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The weaving task was completely novel to the subjects; no subject had prior experience operating a weaving loom, but most had some prior experience with apparatus such as a joystick, a watering can and a key pad.

“First, this task was completely novel to the subjects.No subject had prior experience operating a weaving loom, but most had some prior experience with apparatus such as a joystick, a watering can and a key pad.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The weaving task comprised the most complex routine of the five tasks, incorporating continuous ongoing feedback from the experimenter.

“Secondly, the weaving task comprised the most complex routine of the five tasks, incorporating continuous ongoing feedback from the experimenter.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The weaving task required the coordinated use of both hands.

“Thirdly, it required the coordinated use of both hands.”

May combine two claims.

At 24 h and 2 months retention periods, both amnesic and comparison groups showed remarkable retention of the weaving and geometric figures tasks, while on the spatial sequence task neither group showed any retention of the skill.

“At 24 h and 2 months retention periods, both amnesic and comparison groups showed remarkable retention of the weaving and geometric figures tasks, while on the spatial sequence task neither group showed any retention of the skill.”

May combine two claims.

The performances on the weaving task were significantly correlated with the Grooved Pegboard with both the dominant (Pearson's correlation = 0.655, P = 0.04) and the non-dominant hands (Pearson's correlation = 0.67, P = 0.03).

“The performances on the weaving task were significantly correlated with the Grooved Pegboard with both the dominant (Pearson's correlation = 0.655, P = 0.04) and the non-dominant hands (Pearson's correlation = 0.67, P = 0.03).”

May combine two claims.

While lesions in the anoxic subjects were limited to the hippocampus, all four HSE subjects had damage to the hippocampus, and three of the four had damage to the temporal poles, the amygdala, and the fourth and fifth temporal gyri (including entorhinal, parahippocampal and perirhinal cortices).

“While lesions in the anoxic subjects were limited to the hippocampus, all four HSE subjects had damage to the hippocampus, and three of the four had damage to the temporal poles, the amygdala, and the fourth and fifth temporal gyri (including entorhinal, parahippocampal and perirhinal cortices).”

May combine two claims.

These two tasks presented the worst and the best retention results, respectively.

“These two tasks presented the worst and the best retention results, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

Since some procedural memory systems are anatomically distinct from the declarative memory system, amnesic patients should be able to acquire skills with major implications for daily functioning.

“Since some procedural memory systems are anatomically distinct from the declarative memory system, amnesic patients should be able to acquire skills with major implications for daily functioning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There was no significant difference between groups on the number of days interval between time 1 and time 3.

“There was no significant difference between groups on the number of days interval between time 1 and time 3.”

• Also stated in: § Number of points available · plain

  “There was no significant difference between groups on the number of days interval between time 1 and time 3.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Inter-rater Pearson rs for tracing the amygdala and hippocampus were 0.917 for the left amygdala, 0.952 for the right amygdala, 0.93 for the left hippocampus, and 0.946 for the right hippocampus.

“inter-rater Pearson rs were 0.917 for the left amygdala, 0.952 for the right amygdala, 0.93 for the left hippocampus and 0.946 for the right hippocampus.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 13 comparison subjects.

“At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 13 comparison subjects.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The comparison group was matched to the amnesic group in terms of age and years of education.

“The comparison group was matched to the amnesic group in terms of age (mean = 51.4years, SD = 15.4) and years of education (mean = 16 years, SD = 3.2).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The comparability of the tasks employed in this study with real-world activities highlights the potential application of this memory dissociation in the rehabilitation of patients with amnesia.

“The comparability of the tasks employed in this study with real-world activities highlights the potential application of this memory dissociation in the rehabilitation of patients with amnesia.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

All amnesic patients were studied at least 5 months after their neurological event, at which time their neurological status and neuropsychological profiles were stable.

“All were studied at least 5 months after their neurological event, at which time their neurological status and neuropsychological profiles were stable.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The primary inclusion criterion was the presence of amnesia, operationally defined as severe impairment on standardized measures of both verbal and visual memory (at least 1 Z-score below the mean on the 30 min delayed recall of both the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the Complex Figure Test).

“The primary inclusion criterion was the presence of amnesia, which was operationally defined as severe impairment on standardized measures of both verbal and visual memory (at least 1 Z-score below the mean on the 30 min delayed recall of both the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the Complex Figure Test).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The fact that the groups were not perfectly matched for age and education raised concerns regarding the interpretation of the results at time 3.

“The fact that the groups were not perfectly matched for age and education raised concerns regarding the interpretation of the results at time 3.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The number of years of education and number of days interval between time 1 and time 3 did not differ significantly.

“The number of years of education and number of days interval between time 1 and time 3 did not differ significantly.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The comparison group had significantly more years of education (mean = 18 years; SD = 3.3; t = -2.41, P = 0.02) than the amnesic group.

“The comparison group had significantly more years of education (mean = 18 years; SD = 3.3; t = À2.41,P = 0.02) than the amnesic group.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The comparison group was significantly more educated than the amnesic group (t = -2.47, P = 0.02).

“The comparison group was significantly more educated than the amnesic group (t = À2.47,P = 0.02).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

At time 3, complete data were only available for 10 amnesics and 14 comparison subjects.

“At time 3, complete data were only available for 10 amnesics and 14 comparison subjects.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

At time 3, the two groups were not significantly different in terms of age, years of education and days of interval between time 1 and time 3.

“These two groups were not significantly different in terms of age, years of education and days of interval between time 1 and time 3.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

As a result of the reduction of the number of subjects, the groups were no longer matched for age.

“As a result of the reduction of the number of subjects, the groups were no longer matched for age.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The comparison group was significantly younger (mean = 40.83 years; SD = 8.64; t = 2.67, P = 0.01) than the amnesic group.

“The comparison group was significantly younger (mean = 40.83years; SD = 8.64; t = 2.67, P = 0.01) than the amnesic group.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There was a tendency for the comparison group to be younger (mean = 42.4 years; SD = 9.1) than the amnesic group (t = 2.02, P = 0.05).

“There was a tendency for the comparison group to be younger (mean = 42.4 years; SD = 9.1) than the amnesic group (t = 2.02, P = 0.05).”

May combine two claims.

The two groups were not significantly different in terms of age nor on the number of days interval between time 1 and time 3.

“The two groups were not significantly different in terms of age nor on the number of days interval between time 1 and time 3.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 12 comparison subjects.

“At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 12 comparison subjects.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 10 comparison subjects on the geometric figures task.

“At time 3, complete data were only available for nine amnesics and 10 comparison subjects.”

May combine two claims.

When analyses for time 1 and time 2 were rerun with only those subjects who completed the protocol at time 3, the results were largely consistent with those previously presented: the groups' learning curves at time 1 continued to not differ for all tasks, and no significant retention x group interaction was found except for the pouring task.

“We reran the analyses for time 1 and time 2 with only those subjects who completed the protocol at time 3.The results were largely consistent with those previously presented, i.e. the groups' learning curves at time 1 continued to not differ for all tasks, and no significant retention  group interaction was found except for the pouring task (Table 5).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

At time 3, complete data were available for 10 amnesics and 16 comparison subjects.

“At time 3, complete data were only available for 10 amnesics and 16 comparison subjects.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Our findings have significant implications for neurorehabilitation.

“Finally, our findings have significant implications for neurorehabilitation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

We cannot eliminate any possibility of bias in these situations, given that amnesia of this level of severity is quite obvious.

“We cannot eliminate any possibility of bias in these situations, given that amnesia of this level of severity is quite obvious.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The tendency for the HSE subgroup to perform better than the anoxic subjects on the weaving task raises the possibility that extensive bilateral lesions of the medial temporal region may actually 'facilitate' certain types of procedural learning by freeing them from declarative interference.

“Therefore, the tendency for the HSE subgroup to perform better than the anoxic subjects on the weaving task raises the possibility that extensive bilateral lesions of the medial temporal region may actually 'facilitate' certain types of procedural learning by freeing them from declarative interference.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

More practice and more spaced practice at time 1 might have resulted in better learning and retention of the skills.

“More practice and more spaced practice at time 1 might have resulted in better learning and retention of the skills.”

May combine two claims.

Our results substantially extend the known scope of preserved procedural memory capacity in amnesia, and make clear that this preserved ability encompasses the acquisition of skills relevant to real-world activities.

“Our results substantially extend the known scope of preserved procedural memory capacity in amnesia, and make clear that this preserved ability encompasses the acquisition of skills relevant to real-world activities.”

May combine two claims.

The ability of amnesic subjects to learn and retain a diverse set of new procedural skills with clear translation to real-world activities indicates that this is a robust phenomenon that probably is relevant to many aspects of daily living.

“Rather, the ability of amnesic subjects to learn and retain a diverse set of new procedural skills with clear translation to real-world activities indicates that this is a robust phenomenon that probably is relevant to many aspects of daily living.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the weaving task, an unblinded examiner provided ongoing verbal correction of errors, raising the possibility of experimenter bias.

“In the weaving task, an unblinded examiner provided ongoing verbal correction of errors, raising the possibility of experimenter bias.”

May combine two claims.

Consolidation of a motor skill can be disrupted if a second motor task is learned immediately after the first, and the critical time window beyond which little or no interference is found from a competing task is approximately 4-5 h.

“It has been shown that consolidation of a motor skill can be disrupted if a second motor task is learned immediately after the first, and the critical time window beyond which little or no interference is found from a competing task is $4-5 h (Brashers- Krug et al., 1996;Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug, 1997).”

• cites Brashers-Krug et al., 1996Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug, 1997Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Procedural memory tasks relevant to real-world activities may facilitate the integration of amnesic subjects into the workplace, provided that a sheltered environment to compensate for impaired declarative recall can be established.

“At the same time, procedural memory tasks relevant to real-world activities may facilitate the integration of amnesic subjects into the workplace, provided that a sheltered environment to compensate for impaired declarative recall can be established.”

May combine two claims.

The between-group differences in demographic factors, when they did occur, were always in the direction of being biased against our hypotheses, i.e. the comparison group was younger and more educated than the amnesic group.

“The between-group differences in demographic factors, when they did occur, were always in the direction of being biased against our hypotheses, i.e. the comparison group was younger and more educated than the amnesic group.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Our results help refine our understanding of the dissociation between declarative and procedural memory systems in the human brain.

“Our results also help refine our understanding of the dissociation between declarative and procedural memory systems in the human brain.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The amount of practice and the practice schedule may influence learning and retention of perceptual-motor skills.

“The amount of practice and the practice schedule may influence learning and retention of perceptual-motor skills (Schmidt and Lee, 1999).”

• cites Schmidt and Lee, 1999Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The finding that the amnesic group committed significantly more errors and that most of the comparison group performance was errorless argues against any bias in favour of the amnesic subjects.

“argues against any bias in favour of the amnesic subjects.”