Correct anticipatory movements for SEQA. *A*: control groups 1 (11 cycles of training) and 4 (33 cycles of training). Correct anticipatory movements (mean ± SE) per cycle plotted for SEQA_{train} (filled gray circles) and SEQA_{test} (filled black circles). Data were combined for the 2 control groups because there was no significant difference between them. *B*: groups 1, 2, and 3 (11 cycles of training). There was no significant difference in SEQA_{train} for the 3 groups (*P* > 0.8) and data were combined (filled gray squares). Correct anticipatory movements for SEQA_{test} plotted separately for groups 1 (filled black circles), 2 (empty black circles), and 3 (empty black squares). *C*: groups 4, 5, and 6 (33 cycles of SEQA_{train}). There was no significant difference in SEQA_{train} for the 3 groups (*P* > 0.8) and data were combined (filled gray squares). Correct anticipatory movements for SEQA_{test} plotted separately for groups 1 (filled black circles), 2 (empty black circles), and 3 (empty black squares). *D*: savings at Test (% improvement in cycles 2–5). Each bar represents the mean ± SE for each group. ANOVA showed a main effect for amount of training [*F*(1,30) = 10.92, *P* = 0.002] and a main effect for groups [*F*(2,30) = 6.4, *P* = 0.005]. Post hoc tests showed significant (*P* < 0.003) differences between groups 2 and 3 and groups 1, 4, 5, and 6.

## PubMed Commons