Table 3. Summary of findings for each study for task performance and activity dependent plasticity measures.

Study author and date	Motor learning	Pain paradigm	Acquisition—task performance	Retention—task performance	Activity dependent plasticity
Bilodeau et al (2016) [31]	Explicit Motor sequence learning	Tonic pain	No significant difference in change in error rate or speed between groups. Overall error rates were low and as a result no improvement over time was seen. Speed did change over time.	No difference in change in error rate or speed between groups 24hrs after training.	N/A
Brown et al (2022) [44]	Implicit and Explicit motor sequence learning	Clinical Pain	Both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in time to target but no change in hand path distance across the explicit motor training. There was no significant difference between two groups at any time point. A significant decrease in time to target in the CNP group but not control group and significantly less hand path distance was observed in the control group but not the CNP group across implicit motor training. Comparison between groups demonstrated the control group had a significantly faster time to target at multiple time points during implicit motor learning. No analysis between groups across training available.	Both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in time to target but no change in hand path distance 30 mins after explicit motor training. No significant change in time to target or hand path distance was observed for either group 30 minutes after implicit motor training.	N/A
Dancey et al (2014) [30]	Implicit Motor sequence learning	Tonic pain	Accuracy improved across training in pain group. Accuracy in vehicle control group was high pre training and may explain reduced performance with training and underlie significant differences between groups. No significant difference in change in reaction times between groups.	N/A	N30 SEP peak significant increase in the pain group (increase 20.0%) but not in the control group (increase 9.0%) across training. No significant differences between group was seen in N20, N24, P25 or N18 SEP peak amplitudes.
Dancey et al (2016) [32]	Implicit Motor sequence learning	Tonic pain	Significant change in accuracy of vehicle control group only compared to baseline. Significantly higher accuracy levels in pain group at baseline may have influenced potential for improvement during training. No significant difference in change in reaction times between groups across training.	Significant change in accuracy of vehicle control group only, compared to baseline (see comment on acquisition). No significant difference in change reaction times from post learning to 48hrs (consolidation) between groups.	N20 SEP peak significantly changed in the placebo group (increase 35.5%) but not the pain group (Increase 11.2%) across training.
					No significant differences between group was seen in N18, N30, P25 and N24 SEP peak amplitudes.
Andrew et al (2018) [46]	Visuomotor learning	Clinical pain	No significant difference in change in accuracy between groups across training.	Significantly better performance in the control group compared to the pain group at retention normalised to baseline.	N18 SEP peak significantly greater increase in the pain group (21.1%) compared to the control group (9.2%) across training. Significant difference in change in N24 SEP peak between groups across training. The control group decreased by 28.4% compared a 5.3% increase in pain group. No group differences N30 or N20.
Boudreau et al (2007) [10]	Visuomotor learning	Tonic pain	Improvement in accuracy of the task across training was significantly less in the pain condition than the vehicle control condition.	N/A	Significant decrease in M1 excitability in vehicle control condition but not pain condition across training. A significant increase in MEP values for 1.4T and 1.5T TMS intensity levels in vehicle group across training but no significant changes at any intensity in pain group.
Study author and date	Motor learning	Pain paradigm	Acquisition—task performance	Retention—task performance	Activity dependent plasticity
Dancey et al (2016) [33]	Visuomotor learning	Tonic pain	No significant difference in change in accuracy from baseline between groups. Pain group outperformed control group before and after training.	Significant difference in change in accuracy from baseline to retention between groups (control group decreasing 70.5%, pain group decreased 46.0%)	A significantly difference in change between groups across training was seen in; N18 SEP peak (control group increase 1.7%, pain group decrease 18.5%), N24 SEP peak change in (control group decreasing 28.9%, pain group increase 3.0%) and N20 SEP peak (control group increased 48.9%, pain group decrease by 11.5%). No differences observed in N30 or P25 with training
Dancey et al (2019) [16]	Visuomotor learning	Tonic pain	No significant difference in change in accuracy from baseline between groups (Control decreased 48.7%, pain group decreased 35.2%) Pain group was significantly more accurate at baseline and post-acquisition.	No significant difference in change in accuracy from baseline between groups (Control decreased 21.9%, pain group decreased 10.7%). Pain group was significantly more accurate than control group.	Slope of TMS IO curves showed a significant increase in the control group compared to a non-significant decrease in the pain group. Neither group demonstrated a significant change in slope of TMS IO curves across training.
Mavromatis et al (2017) [34]	Visuomotor learning	Tonic pain	No significant difference in change in accuracy, movement time or speed-accuracy measure between points between groups. Throughout training pain group were significantly more accurate (n2 = 0.284) resulting in better speed-accuracy performance measure.	N/A	The control group demonstrated significantly greater cortical excitability at mid training than the pain group. This difference was not observed at the end of training as the control group excitability had returned to baseline. No effect of group on SICI values.
Rittig-Rasmussen et al (2014) [35]	Visuomotor learning	Tonic pain	No significant difference in % error improvement between groups.	N/A	Cortical excitability measured but no analysis directly comparing across groups included.
Ingham et al (2011) [13]	Ballistic movements	Tonic pain	No difference in rate of improvement of finger acceleration between groups.	N/A	No difference in the change in TMS evoked peak acceleration between control and local pain group across training. In contrast to the local and control groups the remote group showed no change in TMS evoked peak acceleration across training. No difference in MEP amplitude or latency between groups or across training.
Parker et al (2017) [42]	Ballistic movements	Clinical pain	Significantly greater change in accuracy in the arthritis group (18.5%±25%) compared to the control group (0% ±46%). The control group was 10% more accurate than the pain group in the first 10% of trials and did not demonstrate group improvement across training.	N/A	The number of twitches in the baseline and training direction was not different across groups. Significantly greater SICF1.4 in arthritis group compared to control group. Significantly less SICI80 in the arthritis group compared to the control group.
Study author and date	Motor learning	Pain paradigm	Acquisition—task performance	Retention—task performance	Activity dependent plasticity
Vallence et al (2013) [43]	Ballistic movements	Clinical pain	Significantly less learning in the CTTH group compared to the control group demonstrated by less acceleration change.	N/A	Significant increase in MEP amplitude across training in control group but not CTTH group. In the control group MEP amplitude was significantly increased at 10 and 20mins post but not at zero and five mins post. The returned to baseline by 30mins.
Bouffard et al (2014) [39]	Motor Adaptation	Tonic pain	No difference in change in mean absolute error, peak plantarflexion error or TA activity between the groups.	Control group demonstrated significantly lower mean absolute error than pain group suggesting impaired retention in the pain group. No difference in peak plantarflexion.	N/A
Bouffard et al (2016) [38]	Motor Adaptation	Tonic pain	No difference in change in mean absolute error or EMG activity between the groups across training. Significant between group differences in relative timing of error suggests pain group used less anticipatory strategies than control group.	No difference in change in mean absolute error between the groups.	N/A
Bouffard et al (2018) [40]	Motor Adaptation	Tonic pain	No difference in change in mean absolute error and EMG activity after PFC between the groups. Significant between group differences in relative timing of error and TA EMG activity before PFC on day one suggests pain group used less anticipatory strategies than control group.	No difference in change in mean absolute error across days between groups. No difference in timing errors between groups on day two suggests in the absence of pain on day two the pain group demonstrated anticipatory strategy.	N/A
Dupuis et al (2022) [45]	Motor Adaptation	Clinical pain	A significant difference was observed between early and late mean absolute error on day 1. No difference observed between groups. No effect of time or group observed for timing of errors or TA activity.	A significant difference in mean absolute error was observed between day 1 and day 2 but no difference in changes between groups. No group differences for timing of errors between days was observed. Pain group significantly decreased its TA activity prior to PFC compared to the control group, but no difference was observed in TA activity after PFC between groups.	N/A
Lamothe et al (2014) [36]	Motor Adaptation	Tonic pain	No significant group differences for iANG or fERR across training. The pain group made larger feedforward adjustments in anticipation of the force field perturbations.	No significant group differences in iANG or fERR at retention both retaining improvements made on day 1.	N/A
Study author and date	Motor learning	Pain paradigm	Acquisition—task performance	Retention—task performance	Activity dependent plasticity
Salomoni et al (2019) [37]	Motor Adaptation	Tonic pain	No significant difference in movement accuracy between groups across training. The control group adapted significantly quicker to force than the pain group during initial stages of learning. Muscle activity was significantly lower in the pain group during first exposure to the force field.	No difference in the capacity to compensate for perturbation. Difference in muscle activity was maintained even in the absence of pain at retention.	N/A
Arieh et al (2021) [41]	Ecological	Tonic pain	No significant difference in change in throwing dart accuracy between groups across training. Significant greater coordination variability at elbow and wrist in pain groups compared to control group during deceleration phase. Significantly greater degree of wrist movement variability in local pain group compared to remote pain group during acceleration and compared to the control group in deceleration.	No significant difference in change in dart throwing accuracy between groups at retention (24hrs or 1 week). Above differences in movement variability during deceleration phase continued at retention (24hrs and 1 week)	N/A

Abbreviations: TMS, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; SEPs, Somatosensory Evoked Potentials; MEP, Motor evoked potential; EMG, Electromyography; M1, Primary Motor cortex; SICI, Short Intracortical Inhibition; SICF, Short Intracortical Facilitation; iANG, Initial Angle of Deviation; fERR, Final Error; PFC, Peak Force Command; TA, Tibilais Anterior; CTTH, Chronic Tension Type Headache; SCNP, Subclinical Neck Pain; CNP, Clinical Neck Pain; OA, Osteoarthritis.