A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of errorless motor learning on movement outcomes: a lifespan and impairment perspective

Background – When practice is structured such that learners experience considerable success, movement skills are learned effectively. Errorless motor learning minimises errors during practice by constraining the environment to promote success in the early stage of practice. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on the effects of errorless motor learning on performance outcomes (OSF registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SPHR6). Method – A literature search of nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, PyscINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro) and grey literature (Google Scholar and ProQuest Open Dissertation) identified experimental and quasi-experimental studies that examined the effect of errorless motor learning on movement task performance. Effect sizes were calculated (Hedges’ g) and heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-statistic and I² index. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I or RoB2 and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Results – Out of the 8, 514 articles from the search, 29 (31 experiments), including a total of 1, 509 participants, were eligible. For the full sample analysis of movement performance, errorless motor learning did not demonstrate a significant overall effect compared to errorful learning (g = 0.0506, p = 0.223), nor were significant effects found among children (p = 0.068) or young adults (p = 0.925). However, a significant large effect was observed among those with impairments (g = 0.804; p < 0.001). For movement accuracy, a significant moderate overall effect was found (g = 0.854; p = 0.023), among children (g = 0.657; p = 0.007) and learners with impairments (g = 0.873; p = 0.004), but not among young adults (p = 0.303) or learners without impairments (p = 0.117). Risk of bias varied from some concerns/moderate risk of bias to serious/high risk of bias. GRADE ratings ranged from very low to low. Conclusion – Errorless motor learning did not demonstrate a consistent overall advantage over errorful learning for movement outcomes. Significant benefits are apparent in specific subgroups – children and individuals with impairments. The overall strength of the evidence is limited by moderate to high risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and low certainty across studies. Future research should employ more rigorous experimental designs to strengthen the evidence base and clarify conditions under which errorless learning is most effective. Systematic review registration – https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MZXDG.