Assessment & Research

Implicit and explicit motor sequence learning in children born very preterm.

Jongbloed-Pereboom et al. (2017) · Research in developmental disabilities 2017
★ The Verdict

Very preterm children can learn motor sequences as well as classmates, so teach new skills with confidence.

✓ Read this if BCBAs working with early-elementary children born very preterm.
✗ Skip if Clinicians focused only on infant gross-motor milestones.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team worked with children born very preterm and same-age peers.

Each child played a computer game that taught a finger-tapping pattern.

Some kids were told to look for the pattern. Others just played.

The game tracked how fast and how well they learned the sequence.

02

What they found

Both groups learned the pattern equally well, whether they were told to look for it or not.

Working memory scores helped the children play faster, but they did not change how quickly the kids learned.

Being born very early did not block the brain’s ability to pick up new motor skills.

03

How this fits with other research

Little et al. (2015) saw weaker motor learning in adults with autism and linked it to less brain activity.

The new study shows the opposite: preterm children learn sequences just as well as peers.

The difference is the group: the autism study tested adults with social-communication challenges, while this one tested young children whose main risk is early birth.

Dahan-Oliel et al. (2012) add a warning: although motor learning looks fine now, these children may still drop out of sports and hobbies as teens.

So early skill is intact, but long-term participation needs watching.

04

Why it matters

You can stop assuming that very preterm children will struggle with every new motor task.

Go ahead and teach bike riding, handwriting, or keyboarding the same way you would for any child.

If progress stalls later, check leisure opportunities and motivation, not just basic learning ability.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Start an implicit learning game—like a timed peg-board pattern—and track speed; expect typical gains.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
60
Population
developmental delay
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: Motor skills can be learned explicitly (dependent on working memory (WM)) or implicitly (relatively independent of WM). Children born very preterm (VPT) often have working memory deficits. Explicit learning may be compromised in these children. AIMS: This study investigated implicit and explicit motor learning and the role of working memory in VPT children and controls. METHODS: Three groups (6-9 years) participated: 20 VPT children with motor problems, 20 VPT children without motor problems, and 20 controls. A nine button sequence was learned implicitly (pressing the lighted button as quickly as possible) and explicitly (discovering the sequence via trial-and-error). RESULTS: Children learned implicitly and explicitly, evidenced by decreased movement duration of the sequence over time. In the explicit condition, children also reduced the number of errors over time. Controls made more errors than VPT children without motor problems. Visual WM had positive effects on both explicit and implicit performance. CONCLUSION: VPT birth and low motor proficiency did not negatively affect implicit or explicit learning. Visual WM was positively related to both implicit and explicit performance, but did not influence learning curves. These findings question the theoretical difference between implicit and explicit learning and the proposed role of visual WM therein.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2017 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.014