Skip to content
PaperFren

Learning

Does implicit throwing practice survive fatigue?

Banihosseini R, Abdoli B, Kavyani M · Frontiers in psychology · 2025

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

In 32 people, implicit (errorless, near-to-far) throwing practice beat explicit (errorful, far-to-near) practice under both Stroop mental fatigue and isometric physical fatigue.

Study at a glance

Design
Human experiment — Two-group throwing-task experiment: implicit (errorless) vs explicit (errorful) learning, then retention/transfer under physical and mental fatigue
N
N=32 · 32 participants equally divided into implicit and explicit learning groups (16 each)
Population
Healthy participants performing a dart-like throwing skill-acquisition protocol
Outcome
Throwing performance during acquisition, retention, and transfer under mental (Stroop) and physical (50% MVC elbow) fatigue

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

Implicit learners showed better performance under fatigue and significantly outperformed explicit learners regardless of fatigue type. Acquisition analyses found a group main effect on throwing scores (F1,30=18.968, p<0.001, η²=0.387).

Methodology

Split 32 participants into explicit vs implicit throwing groups (150 throws from five distances). Explicit started far and moved closer (errorful); implicit started close and moved out (errorless). Later tests included retention plus transfer under 30-min Stroop fatigue and 2-min 50% MVC elbow-extension fatigue.

Limitations

A 32-person lab throwing task does not prove implicit methods win for all sports, jobs, or clinical rehab under real-world fatigue.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.