Visuomotor rotations are frequently used to study the different processes underlying motor adaptation. Explicit aiming strategies and implicit recalibration are two of these processes. Various methods, which differ in their underlying assumptions, have been used to dissociate the two processes. Direct methods, such as verbal reports, assume explicit knowledge to be verbalizable, where indirect methods, such as the exclusion, assume that explicit knowledge is controllable. The goal of this study was thus to directly compare verbal reporting with exclusion in two different conditions: during consistent reporting and during intermittent reporting. Our results show that our two conditions lead to a dissociation between the measures. In the consistent reporting group, all measures showed similar results. However, in the intermittent reporting group, verbal reporting showed more explicit re‐aiming and less implicit adaptation than exclusion. Curiously, when exclusion was measured again, after the end of learning, the differences were no longer apparent. We suspect this may reflect selective decay in implicit adaptation, as has been reported previously. All told, our results clearly indicate that methods of measurement can affect the amount of explicit re‐aiming and implicit adaptation that is measured. Since it has been previously shown that both explicit re‐aiming and implicit adaptation have multiple components, discrepancies between these different methods may arise because different measures reflect different components.

中文翻译：

---

方法很重要：视觉运动适应中显性和隐性过程的测量会影响结果

视觉运动旋转通常用于研究运动适应的不同过程。显式瞄准策略和隐式重新校准是其中两个过程。在其基本假设不同的各种方法已被用来分离这两个过程。直接方法（例如口头报告）假定显性知识是可口述的，而间接方法（例如排除）则假定显性知识是可控制的。因此，本研究的目的是在两种不同的情况下直接比较口头报告与排除报告：一致报告期间和间歇报告期间。我们的结果表明，我们的两个条件导致措施之间的分离。在一致的报告组中，所有指标均显示出相似的结果。但是，在间歇报告组中，与排除相比，口头报告显示了更明确的重新瞄准和更少的隐式适应。奇怪的是，在学习结束后再次测量排斥时，差异不再明显。如前所述，我们怀疑这可能反映了内隐适应的选择性衰减。总而言之，我们的结果清楚地表明，测量方法可以影响所测量的显式重新瞄准和隐式适应的数量。由于先前已经证明显式重新命名和隐式适应都具有多个组成部分，因此这些不同方法之间可能会出现差异，因为不同的度量反映了不同的组成部分。差异不再明显。如前所述，我们怀疑这可能反映了内隐适应的选择性衰减。总而言之，我们的结果清楚地表明，测量方法可以影响所测量的显式重新瞄准和隐式适应的数量。由于先前已经证明显式重新命名和隐式适应都具有多个组成部分，因此这些不同方法之间可能会出现差异，因为不同的度量反映了不同的组成部分。差异不再明显。如前所述，我们怀疑这可能反映了内隐适应的选择性衰减。总而言之，我们的结果清楚地表明，测量方法可以影响所测量的显式重新瞄准和隐式适应的数量。由于先前已经证明显式重新命名和隐式适应都具有多个组成部分，因此这些不同方法之间可能会出现差异，因为不同的度量反映了不同的组成部分。