Stefano Ioannucci

Arnaud Boutin

Thomas Michelet

Zénon Alexandre

Alexandre Zenon

Arnaud Badets
email: arnaud.badets@u-bordeaux.fr

Conscious awareness of motor fluidity improves performance and decreases cognitive effort in sequence learning

Keywords: Motor learning, Conscious awareness, pupil dilation, motor sequence

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Motor skill learning is critical for survival. For example, efficient acquisition of a new evasive manoeuvre during a flight procedure can be decisive for a military pilot. For a building-worker, effective learning of a dockyard-tool can be critical for safety. Finally, a skilled-surgeon can make the difference between death and life in required situations.

Consequently, the cognitive mechanisms at work during learning of many real-world motor skills represent a scientific challenge in our societies (see [START_REF] Harris | Action observation for sensorimotor learning in surgery[END_REF][START_REF] Schmidt | Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis[END_REF] for reviews). These learning processes are accompanied with subjective, meta-learning percept of performance improvement, and more specifically, about the fluency of the motor skill. Such conscious awareness of the fluency of goalbased movements in turn reinforces future enactments [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF]. However, little is known about the specific mechanisms at work in this feedback effect of conscious feeling of fluency on learning.

The first empirical evidence on the effect of conscious awareness of action in motor learning comes from a study where participants were required to learn a motor sequence task with the instruction to detect, after each trial, the most maximal fluidity of the motor sequence [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF]. Specifically, the task in this study was composed of a 12-element motor sequence on a keyboard, cued by on-screen visual stimuli, and participants were requested to press with the right-hand fingers the appropriate response keys as rapidly and accurately as possible. When such regular stimulation is repeated over time (after several trials), it is well known that participants encode the motor sequence by associative learning between keys presses, leading to optimized motor performance [START_REF] Boutin | Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and coding[END_REF][START_REF] Jiménez | Chunking by colors: Assessing discrete learning in a continuous serial reaction-time task[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information[END_REF][START_REF] Solopchuk | Chunking improves symbolic sequence processing and relies on working memory gating mechanisms[END_REF], see [START_REF] Sakai | Emergence of rhythm during motor learning[END_REF], for a review). The two main groups of this study were called the "awareness group", and the "No-judgment control group". For the awareness group, participants were required to judge after each trial whether their performed motor sequence had attained maximal fluidity; practically, if participants replied "yes" to this question, it meant that she/he believed that she/he was not able to improve motor fluidity further. For participants in the no-judgment group, no judgment was required after each trial, and the instruction emphasized only improving and learning the motor sequence. Results revealed a clear motor improvement for both groups at the end of the learning phase, and most importantly, that participants in the awareness group outperformed participants of the no-judgment group. For the authors, this is a first piece of evidence that the conscious awareness of the motor fluidity can be categorized as a factor that can influence motor sequence learning positively.

Accordingly to this finding, and as mentioned by [START_REF] Abrahamse | Control of automated behavior: insights from the discrete sequence production task[END_REF], motor sequence learning can be deeply improved by explicit sequence descriptions during the instruction. In the same vein, [START_REF] Jaynes | Temporal and kinematic consistency predict sequence awareness[END_REF] have revealed that participants who became aware of their motor patterns during the learning phase performed the sequence with greater consistency with regard to their movement kinematics. Finally, [START_REF] Toner | In praise of conscious awareness: a new framework for the investigation of "continuous improvement" in expert athletes[END_REF] emphasized that expert sport performers and musicians can improve their performances throughout conscious cognitive activities in deploying for instance attention toward bodily movements. However, altogether these results say little about the mechanisms at play in this motor learning improvement induced by conscious awareness. One hypothesis is that cognitive effort would be increased in the condition in which participants focus on reaching maximal fluidity of the movement, in turn leading to improved performance. Indeed, it is well known that some experimental factors which emphasize more cognitive effort can in turn improve motor learning [START_REF] Schmidt | Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis[END_REF]. For example, it is accepted that practicing several motor tasks in a random practice format during the learning phase (e.g., the randomization of three motor tasks to-be learned), is more beneficial for a long-lasting learning than practicing the same tasks in a blocked format (e.g., with no or less randomization of these tasks). This beneficial effect of randomization for motor learning is known under the name "contextual interference effect" [START_REF] Shea | Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill[END_REF]. Accordingly, [START_REF] Li | An assessment of the attention demands during randomand blocked-practice schedules[END_REF] have found greater attentional demand for the motor planning of the task to-be learned during the learning phase of a random practice. To interpret these data, Wright and colleagues (2016, for a review) have recently suggested that encountering a contextual interference "in practice is "more effortful or demanding" due to the need to engage a broader set of cognitive operations needed to execute an action." (p. 4). For these authors, such additional cognitive efforts can in turn improve the learning of the motor sequence tasks.

Consequently, in following this theoretical argument of the cognitive effort effect on motor learning, we could speculate that an additional cognitive effort is at work when participants are instructed to attain the maximal fluidity of a motor sequence which in turn improves motor encoding.

While this cognitive-effort hypothesis seems well suited to interpret the effect of conscious awareness of action on motor learning, an alternative hypothesis would be that the improvement in sequence learning induced by fluidity judgment is mediated by other mechanisms than increased effort. Indeed, in order to assess the fluidity of their performance after each trial, participants have to mentally rehearse their action. Like an additional feedback on the movement, this additional rehearsal of performance in the fluidity judgment group could be responsible for the specific enhancement in their motor learning process [START_REF] Aiken | The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot[END_REF]. Moreover, [START_REF] Wulf | Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning[END_REF] showed that focusing attention on the enhancement of future performance outcomes is an important factor for motor learning. For these authors, "enhanced outcome is achieved with less effort, as indicated by reduced muscular activity, heart rate, oxygen consumption, and so forth. Thus, movement efficiency is enhanced as well." (p. 1401). For example, it is well known that drawing attention on the environmental consequence of a performed action is more beneficial for motor learning than drawing attention on the different movements themselves to produce this action (see [START_REF] Lewthwaite | Optimizing motivation and attention for motor performance and learning[END_REF] for a review). Thus, in accordance with this "outcomes" hypothesis, it could be argued that the beneficial effect in drawing attention -at the end of a trial -on the maximal fluidity of an action can have the capacity to improve subsequently the learning of the motor sequence. Both the rehearsal and the action outcome hypotheses lead to predictions of lower effort associated with the fluidity judgment instructions.

The main aim of the present article is to disentangle these alternative hypotheses about the implication of cognitive effort in the effect of conscious awareness of action on motor learning. To that end, we have used the pupillary dilation paradigm, widely accepted as a physiological marker of cognitive effort (see [START_REF] Van Der Wel | Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: a review[END_REF]Zenon, 2019, for reviews). In the domain of task learning, pupil size has been shown to decrease across trials [START_REF] Foroughi | Pupil size as a measure of within-task learning[END_REF], an effect interpreted as the signature of decreasing cognitive load induced by learning. In the present study, we recorded pupillary responses in both groups that learned a motor sequence task. Participants of the first "action awareness" group were instructed to execute the motor task (motor task A) as quickly and accurately as possible and to judge after each trial whether they reached their maximal motor sequence fluidity [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF]. Participants of the second no-judgment "control" group were only instructed to perform the motor task as quickly and accurately as possible. For both groups, some test trials (motor task B) were inserted across practice blocks. These test trials served as a within-group control condition in order to assess the cognitive load when participants were facing an unpracticed, new motor task. Indeed, as suggested by Foroughi and colleagues (2017), we expected pupil dilation increases for both groups in the test trials.

More importantly, if the conscious awareness effect in motor learning implies increased cognitive effort [START_REF] Wright | Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning[END_REF], then the expected higher learning rate on motor task A for the awareness group should be associated with increased pupil dilation, in comparison to the control group. In contrast, with respect to both the mental rehearsal and effortless action-outcome hypotheses [START_REF] Wulf | Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning[END_REF], we expect inverse results during the practice of motor task A. Finally, from the perspective of motor performance, we also expected to replicate the pattern of behavioral results reported by [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF], that is, a motor learning improvement for the awareness group in comparison to the control group. No difference between groups is expected for the new motor task B, in terms of task performance and pupil dilation.

Method

Participants 30 students from the University of Bordeaux (age = 24.1 ±3.8, 13 M) participated in this study. All were naive to the experimental procedure and task. All participants were right-handed and possessed normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Their informed consents to participate was obtained before the experiment, and the study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the university. The inclusion criteria were the absence of any medical history related to the cognitive domain (e.g. dyslexia, lethargy, neglect, depression, psycho-motor impairments) and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Participants volunteered for the study and received no compensation for their participation. The sample size was predetermined to be sufficient to detective effect of action awareness on implicit motor learning on the basis of previous work [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF].

Materials

Participants were comfortably seated in front of a 1280 by 1024 computer screen and a keyboard for the key pressing task. The screen stood at approximately 50 cm from the participants' head, which was placed onto a chin-rest. An Eye-tracker 1000 was placed below the screen (SR Research Ltd., Mississauga, Canada) in order to record variations in pupil size, as volunteers executed the task. The experiment was programmed and implemented with the Psychtoolbox on Matlab software, version 2019a (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States). Source code is freely available on [https://github.com/ste-ioan/SeqLearn]. All data has been made available at https://zenodo.org/record/4963687 [START_REF] Ioannucci | Conscious awareness of motor fluidity improves performance and decreases cognitive effort in sequence learning[END_REF].

Procedure

The experimental procedure was carried out in a single session day. During the experiment, four horizontally aligned black squares were presented on the center of the computer screen on a grey background. These hollow squares were 2 cm wide and 2 cm high, with 1 cm distance between them. Imperative stimuli were green square fillings appearing, in sequence, inside any one of the four above-mentioned locations.

Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and correctly as possible to the sequentially presented stimuli, by pressing the corresponding response keys with their right-hand fingers. In order to signal the beginning of each new trial, which consisted of a full repetition of a stimuli-response sequence, a 50-ms starting tone (1250 Hz) was played synchronously with the presentation of the four empty squares. The onset of the first stimulus was randomly varied in an interval between 1 and 3s after the aforementioned tone (in 0.5-s steps), while a 5s fixed pause was set between trials. The green target squares would disappear only after a key was pressed by the participant, immediately followed by the next in sequence. Reaction times (RT) were measured as the time between the presentation of an imperative stimulus and the corresponding key press.

Participants were assigned randomly to two experimental groups: the "control" group (N = 15, age = 22.7 ± 3.2, 6 males), and the "action awareness" group (N =15, age = 25.4 ± 3.9, 7males). All participants underwent the same type of task, which included a training phase and a test phase, distinguished by two different motor sequences; motor sequence "A" for the training phases and motor sequence "B" for the test phases.

Therefore, the structure of the experiment for all participants was the following: 3 pretest trials (sequence B), 45 training trials (sequence A, first acquisition), 3 mid-test trials (sequence B), 45 training trials (sequence A, second acquisition) and 3 post-test trials (sequence B). Therefore, the training consisted of 90 trials, while the test included 9 trials, for a total of 99 trials. This task design allowed us to attempt at replicating a previous finding that demonstrated a potentiation of sensory-motor learning induced by action awareness [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF] and to assess whether group effects would extend into a second acquisition phase. Each trial included one repetition of a 12-element sensorimotor sequence, which as mentioned differed between the test and the training phases, being either sequence "A" or "B". Specifically, from the four horizontally aligned squares, participants were required to press sequentially the following keys: C V B N.

For convenience and ease of read, response keys C-V-B-N were reported as numbers 1-2-3-4, where 1 corresponds to the index and 4 to the little finger. Sequence A consisted in 2-4-2-1-3-4-1-2-3-1-4-3, and sequence B in 2-4-1-3-2-1-4-2-3-4-3-1. Participants were not informed about the two different sequences and their structure. The inclusion of test trials (unpracticed sequence "B") at different time points subserves the role of quantifying the learning-specific effects of performance evaluation (in terms of both pupil dilation and motor performance), in order to distinguish them from generalized practice performance [START_REF] Abrahamse | Representing serial action and perception[END_REF].

Importantly, the only experimental variation between the two groups consisted in displaying to participants of the awareness group the following question at the end of the trial: "Maximal fluidity?". Participants were initially instructed that maximal fluidity corresponded to the moment where they felt they could no longer improve in the execution of the motor task. They were required to respond by pressing on the keyboard with their left hand: 1 for "yes" if they felt that they had performed the task as smoothly and fast as they could, or 2 for "no" if they had the impression they could yet improve sequence performance. More precisely, this fluidity instruction emphasized an ideal motor performance with no interruption between successive key presses. Lastly, after completion of the 99 trials, participants were asked to recall from memory the training sequence by two means. Firstly by attempting 3 times to reproduce the sequence on the keyboard without visual stimuli on the screen (only empty squares were displayed), and secondly by writing down the elements in their sequential arrangement on a sheet of paper. The outcomes of these procedures were used as an index of implicit and explicit sequence knowledge, respectively.

We kept track of the pupillary responses of participants' as they were engaged in the motor sequence task, extracting the signal from the onset of the first target stimulus to the last key press for each of the 99 trials. Blinks were removed and linearly interpolated. Subsequently, the data was down-sampled and high-pass filtered with 0.05Hz cut-off frequency. Then, an autoregressive model with exogenous inputs was fitted to the pupil signal [START_REF] Zénon | Time-domain analysis for extracting fast-paced pupil responses[END_REF]. This method allowed us to extract the pupillary responses to each individual target onset, thereby taking care of the potential confound induced by the differences in reaction times across groups and sequences. The model was given as input a matrix including five regressors, signaling target onset separately for the five phases of the experiment. This resulted in separate impulse responses to target onset for the 2 phases of training and the 3 phases of test. We then extracted the maximal value of those impulse responses as estimates of pupil peak size of each participant for pre-test, first training, mid-test, second training and post-test.

Additionally, to further rule-out the presence of a group-wise difference in the baseline levels of pupil sizes, subject-wise baseline pupil size was estimated for each of the 99 trials in the task, consisting of the average pupil size during the two seconds that preceded the onset of the task stimuli (i.e. during display of trial number), which were then averaged across trials.

Wrong responses and outliers (beyond ± 2 SD), consisting in 8% of the dataset (Wrong: 3.1%, Outlier: 4.96%), were excluded from the behavioral analyses. One participant failed to respond to more than half of the elements of the sequence in 3 trials, the RTs of which were considered unreliable and discarded. First of all, to assess whether the error rate was significantly different between groups, a ranked-sum test between groups was carried out on the sum of errors across participants, for each trial.

Then, to evaluate group level differences in the learning of the sequence "A" in both training acquisitions (first 45 trials and second 45 trials), we first assessed if a better fit would be provided by an exponential [y = a*exp(b*x)] or a power function [y = a*xb)],

given the contention in the literature on the topic (Heathcote et al., 2000). We found a slight advantage of the power law (mean R 2 = 0.28) compared to the exponential function (mean R 2 = 0.26). Therefore, we fitted RT data of each participant with a power function to extract an estimate of their rate of learning (Newell & Rosenbloom, 1993) in both training acquisitions. Subsequently, these parameter estimates were tested in a mixed ANOVA, assessing the effects of group, acquisition (first or second set of 45 trials) and their interaction. For the test trials employing sequence "B", given the lower number of trials and different number of acquisitions, we conducted a separate repeated measures ANOVA on the two groups and the 3-trial RT averages of the 3 tests (pre-/ mid-/ post-test). To further evaluate sequence-specific effects of the action awareness condition, an additional mixed ANOVA was ran on the difference between the RTs of the two sequences, thus providing indices of an early (mean RT of trials 1 to 3 -mean RT of trials 4 to 6), halfway (mean RT of trials 49 to 51 -mean RT of trials 46 to 48 and 52 to 54 ) and late (mean RT of trials 97 to 99 -mean RT of trials 94 to 96) learning. The learning phase (early, halfway, late), group (control, awareness) and their interaction were included in the model.

Concerning the pupil measures, we conducted a linear mixed model on the peaks of the pupillary impulse responses, with sequence, group and their interaction as fixed factors, and participant as random variable. The baseline estimates of pupil sizes were tested in a between-subjects rank-sum test.

Results

The rank-sum test on the error rates did not highlight significant group differences in the occurrence of errors between the two groups (Z = 1.6, p = 0.11, d = 0.15). Specifically, the sum of errors of the control group had a mean of 5.8 and a median of 5 errors across all trials, and the awareness group's sum of errors had a mean of 5.3 and a median of 4 errors across trials. This finding implies that any effect found between the RTs of groups could not be explained by diverging error rates.

The analysis on the participants' learning curves of the training phases revealed a significant effect at the group level (F(1, 28) = 4.37, p = 0.046, η p = 0.13), revealing that the awareness group learned the training sequence "A" faster than the control group, regardless of the acquisition phase. No significant effects were found for the acquisition (F(1, 28) = 0.54, p = 0.47, η 2 p = 0.02), nor for the interaction between acquisition and group (F(1, 28) = 1.84, p = 0.19, η 2 p = 0.06).

The analysis of the test trials did not reveal a group effect for the sequence "B" (F(1, 28) = 0.04, p = 0.84, η 2 p = 0.001), while a general practice effect of acquisition (F(2, 56) = 4.34, p = 0.018, η 2 p = 0.13) was found to be significant. A Tukey post-hoc comparison indicated that the pre-test was not significantly different from the mid-test (p = 0.88, d = 0.06), but was different from the post-test (p = 0.02, d = 0.4). The difference from the mid-test to the post-test was not significant (p = 0.06, d = 0.31).

Altogether, these results revealed a general improvement from the pre-to the post-test in sequence "B" (502 ± 73 ms, 497 ± 85 ms, 472 ± 76 ms; for the pre-, mid-, and posttest, respectively). The interaction between acquisition and group was not significant (F(1, 56) = 1, p = 0.37, η 2 p = 0.03).

On the other hand, the analysis of the difference in RT between trained and novel sequences across the three learning phases highlighted a significant interaction between the learning phase and the group condition (F(2, 56) = 3.44, p = 0.039, η 2 p = 0.11). The main effect of learning was also significant (F(2, 56) = 23.68, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.46), while the group main effect failed to reach significance (F(1, 28) = 3.71, p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.12).

A Tukey post-hoc analysis on the learning phase and group interaction showed that the two groups differed significantly in the late learning phase only (p = 0.036, d = -0.85), but not in the early ( p = 0.9, d = 0.18) and halfway (p = 0.86, d = -0.42) phases. Concerning the participants' pupil size, sequence (F(1, 132) = 5.90, p = 0.016, η 2 p = 0.04) and group (F(1, 132) = 24.59, p < 0.0001, η 2 p = 0.15), were found to have significant medium and large effects, respectively. Indeed, the awareness group displayed a smaller absolute change in pupil size when engaged in the task, regardless of the sequence, and both groups displayed a larger pupil size when presented with the sequence "B" during test trials. No significant interaction was revealed between sequence and group (F(1, 132) = 1.16, p = 0.28, η 2 p = 0.01).

The rank-sum test ran on the baseline pupil sizes of participants confirmed the absence of group-wise differences [Z = -0.7, p = 0.48, d = -0.17]. implicit recall trials, while no participant in the control group did so. However, a t-test between groups did not reveal a significant difference in the number of average items implicitly recalled [T(28) = 0.52, p = 0.60, d = 0.19].

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to tease apart two alternative hypotheses regarding the mechanisms at the origin of the effect of conscious awareness of action on motor learning. The cognitive effort hypothesis predicted that improved performance in the "awareness" condition would be associated with dilated pupil size [START_REF] Wright | Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning[END_REF]. In contrast, the mental rehearsal and the action outcome hypotheses, assuming that participants would rehearse more their past actions and/or focus more their attention on action outcome in the awareness group, would predict the opposite pattern of results [START_REF] Wulf | Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning[END_REF]. Our findings are clearly in favor of the latter, with the fluidity judgment leading to decreased pupillary responses in comparison to the control group. Besides, and as expected, motor learning results confirmed earlier findings from Boutin and colleagues, showing that the action awareness group benefitted from the fluidity judgment specifically for the learned motor sequence A, and not for the control sequence B (in exact replication of [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF]. Moreover, the emergence of sequence-specific learning in the late learning phase confirmed the necessity to have a large number of sequence repetitions to see the emergence of sequence learning effects. Also, we found for both groups that the pupillary response increased when performing the new sequence B, which is interpreted as the marker of additional cognitive effort necessary to perform this new sequence [START_REF] Foroughi | Pupil size as a measure of within-task learning[END_REF][START_REF] Zénon | An information-theoretic perspective on the costs of cognition[END_REF]. These results are also in agreement with earlier reports of increased pupillary response to the violation of expected sequences of stimulus presentation, even when partly unconscious (Alamia et al., 2019;Pupil-linked arousal responds to unconscious surprisal). However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such results are presented in the context of motor sequence learning.

Altogether, these findings revealed that the specific improvement of the motor sequence A induced by the fluidity judgment was not associated with increased cognitive effort and suggests, on the contrary, that attentional allocation to action outcomes may have improved performance, while concurrently decreasing cognitive effort. Surprisingly though, the action awareness group showed lower pupil dilation during practice of both the trained and untrained sequences. To interpret this sequenceunspecific effect, we suggest that action awareness had a general impact on motivation that, in turn, affected both tasks. Indeed, participants were instructed to judge whether the task was performed with maximal fluidity, and consequently, we could further assume that such strategy afforded a sort of general motivational comfort in performing both tasks. Accordingly, for [START_REF] Eitam | Motivation from control[END_REF], when an action is followed by constant perceptual effects, the participants' motivation to perform this task is improved. For the present study, the detection of the maximal fluidity can be seen as a constant perceptual and expected effect that can reinforce a general motivational mechanism. Importantly though, this general motivational comfort did not impact the performance of the motor sequence B.

For the specific improvement of the motor sequence A related to conscious awareness of action, we agree with Boutin and colleagues (2014) that such positive effect could have its origin at the level of the representation of the sequence. In this view, because the instructions emphasized the expected fluidity effect of the movement, we suggest that an ideomotor mechanism could be at work during this motor learning. Indeed, according to ideomotor theory, the cognitive representation of an action depends much more on the expected effect of the action than on the action movements themselves (see Badets & Osiurak, 2017, for a review;[START_REF] Greenwald | Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism[END_REF]. This interpretation is in agreement with findings on tool use paradigms (see [START_REF] Osiurak | Tool use and affordance: manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches[END_REF] for a theory). For example, in using inverse pliers that inversed the relationship between the hand movement toward the tool and the tool movement toward the environment, [START_REF] Osiurak | Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm[END_REF] have found that actions were easier when processing stimuli that were coherent in terms of their effect on the environment. This finding revealed that during tool use, the cognitive representation of the action is more based on the expected perceptual effect on the environment than on the hand movement toward the tool. For the present data, the expected perceptual effect is the expected maximal fluidity which is processed after each trial that composed the 12element key press. More precisely, this expected perceptual effect is processed after the entire completion of the motor sequence, but it is also mentally rehearsed by the participant who has to judge if the maximal effect was reached or not. As suggested by the rehearsal hypothesis [START_REF] Aiken | The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot[END_REF], both actual execution and additional mental rehearsal have probably improved the motor skill learning of the entire motor sequence. However, if the current finding fits well with the ideomotor theory, it does not represent a direct support for its conjectural rationality. More direct experimental evidence is required to link an ideomotor mechanism to conscious awareness of actions.

Finally, our ideomotor interpretation accords at the first glance with [START_REF] Wulf | Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning[END_REF] i.e., the outcome hypothesis, but see also Wulf & Prinz, for an ideomotor account of this outcome-attentional effect) who claimed that focusing the attention to the outcomes can improve motor learning. However, while our data clearly dissociate motor sequence performance (specific to sequence A) from the pupillary responses (decreased in both sequences), this outcome-attentional effect theory does not fully support current findings. Nevertheless, it could also be argued that the learning of motor sequence B did not benefit from the conscious awareness effect due to the scarcity of trials on this sequence, which may have shadowed its beneficial learning effects. Indeed, from the seminal finding [START_REF] Boutin | Conscious awareness of action potentiates sensorimotor learning[END_REF], and the present data, we propose that the conscious awareness of smooth behaviors may be a genuine learning factor that needs sufficient practice to reveal its positive effect in the coding mechanism of new motor tasks. Obviously, additional investigations with different motor tasks are needed to generalize our findings. Nevertheless, [START_REF] Toner | In praise of conscious awareness: a new framework for the investigation of "continuous improvement" in expert athletes[END_REF] have revealed that focusing attention toward bodily movements can also improve motor performance in different sports, and consequently, we can hypothesize that the present learning factor could also have positive effects in several behaviors that require fluidity like a tennis service or a boxing sequence.

To conclude, the present findings revealed that when participants are instructed to judge the maximal fluidity of their performed movements, which can be interpreted as conscious awareness of fluent goal-based movements, their motor skill is reinforced for future enactments, and did not transfer to another, new task. This specific effect could come from an ideomotor mechanism at the cognitive level that manages and represents the task. Another cognitive level is also impacted by such fluidity judgement throughout an attentional mechanism which is highlighted by the pupil dilation.

However, this attentional mechanism seems completely decorrelated from the motor mechanism responsible for improving motor learning. Moreover, the generalizability of the results of this work may be hindered by the relatively small samples employed, albeit in line with most of the published literature in the domain. Consequently, the present results should be interpreted conservatively until they have been replicated in a larger sample. Therefore, more studies are needed to explore these new avenues in motor learning throughout the lens of the pupillary response and the possible link with motor sequence representation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards:

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. Finally, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Graphical depiction of average reaction time in the test trials (squares indicating sequence B; trials 1-3, 49-51 and 97-99), and training trials (dots indicating sequence A; trials 4-48 and 52-96) with the power curve fitted on the latter. Symbols in red represent the action awareness group, while symbols in black indicate the control group. Shaded area depicts the standard error.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Representation of extracted pupil sizes of both groups, for the test phases (sequence B, left columns, 3 per subject) and the training phases (sequence A, right columns, 2 per subject). For transparency's sake, all the data points are displayed. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.0001.


CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) PI

Degree of jurisdiction

% #

County Courts 14% 10

Courts of first instance 42% 29

Courts of appeal 26% 18

Supreme court 18% 13

Total 100% 70

The most common area of jurisdiction was 'Civil law' (33%,29) followed by 'Administrative law' (28%, 25), 'Criminal law' (27%, 24) and Asylum/migration law (12%, 11).

Area of jurisdiction

Lawyers

Out of the 147 lawyers who responded, (52%, 77) indicated 'Mid-career', followed by 'Junior' (31%,46) and 'Senior' (16%,24). For the area of law practiced 'Contracts and obligations' (11%, 59) was the most common, followed by 'Family law' (10%, 54), 'Criminal law' (9%, 45) and 'Property law' (8%, 43), 'Inheritance law' (7%, 37), 'Administrative law' (7%, 35), 'Business and commercial law' and 'Immigration law' (7%, 34), with all the remaining areas accounting for 5% or less. The most common response to the question regarding area of specialisation was 'Middle East' (26%, 12) followed by 'North Africa' (22%, 10), 'Sub-Saharan Africa' and 'South Asia '(11%, 5) each, 'Minority/Indigenous populations '(9%, 4), 'South East Asia', 'East Asia' and 'Other' (7%, 3) each and 'South and Central America' (2%, 1).

Career Stage

Career stage

Expert Type

Frequency

Frequency of involvement

To the question of how many experts did they instruct annually, most responding judges and lawyers (52%, 41) chose 'Less than 10' (59%, 107), followed by 'Never appointed experts' (21% 38), 'Between 10 and 20' (16%, 28), 'Between 30 and 50' (2% 4) and 'Between 20 and 30' (2%, 3). (27%, 10) of experts provided 'Less than 5' written reports, (22%, 9) indicated a number of written reports 'Between 20 and 50', (22%, 8) indicated 'Between 5 and 10', (19%, 7) 'Between 10 and 20', (8%, 3) choose 'Other' and (3%, 1) indicated 'Between 50 and 100.' (27%, 10) of experts provided a total of 'Less than 5 oral reports', (22%, 9) indicated 'Between 10 and 20', (16%, 6) 'Between 5 and 10' and 'Between 20 and 50', (14%, 5) 'Between 50 and 100' and (5%, 2) chose 'Other'.

Areas of Expertise

Annual cases

Less than 10

Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 30

Between 30 and 50

Never appointed experts

Greece Data Summary

Fields of law

The most common area of use of cultural expertise was 'Refugee and Asylum Law' (15%, 97), followed by 'Immigration Law' (14%, 92), 'Family Law' (10%, 61), 'International human rights law' (9%, 58), 'Administrative Law' (7%, 42), 'Criminal law' (6%, 40) and 'Inheritance law' (6%, 49), with all the remaining areas accounting for 4% or less.

Written

Typology of Experts

The most common response to the question regarding the expert type was 'Native language speakers' (36%, 26), followed by 'Native language speakers' (29%, 73), 'Country experts' (27%, 69), 'University professors' (18%, 46), Native lawyers (13%, 32) and 'Community leaders' (5%, 14), with all remaining categories receiving 4%.

Sites

Discipline

The (18%, 46) who selected 'University professors' were asked to specify the disciplines of those professors. The most common responses were 'Law' (37%, 28) followed by 'Sociology' (23%, 17), then 'Political Science' (21%, 16), 'History' (8%, 6), 'Linguistics' (4%, 3) and 'Other' (1%, 1).

Expert type

Native language speakers Country experts

University professors

Native lawyers

Community leaders

Greece Data Summary

Remuneration of cultural expertise

The majority of responses indicated that experts were paid at 'Set price per report' (65%, 13), followed by 'Standard hourly rate (35%, 7).

Remuneration of experts

Usefulness

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of cultural expertise was 'Very useful' (36%, 65), followed by 'Moderately useful' (25%, 45), then 'Extremely useful' (19%, 35), 'Slightly useful' (15%, 28) and 'Not at all useful' (4%, 8).

Components of impact

Contribution to law database

Most respondents did wish to contribute to the establishment of a case law database (54%, 72), while (46%, 62) did not.

Usefulness of case law database

Very useful Somewhat useful No use

Greece Data Summary

Capacity Building

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of a program teaching cultural expertise was 'Definitely yes' (33%, 60), followed by 'Might or might not' (31%, 57), 'Probably yes' (27%, 50), 'Probably not' (5%, 9) and 'Definitely not' (4%, 7).

Usefulness of a teaching program on cultural expertise

Greece Data Summary CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Venetia Argyropoulou
			Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
			Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Areas of Expertise %	#
	Middle East	26% 12
	North Africa	22% 10
	Sub Saharan Africa 11% 5
	South Asia	11% 5
	Minority/Indigenous	9%	4
	populations
	South East Asia	7%	3
	Other	7%	3	Translator interpreter
				Cultural mediator
	East Asia	7%	3	Expert witness
				Other
	South and Central	2%	1
	America
	Total	100% 47

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Venetia Argyropoulou
		Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
			Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Annual cases	%	#
	Less than 10	59% 107
	Between 10 and 20	16% 28
	Between 20 and 30	2%	3
	Between 30 and 50	2%	4
	Never appointed experts 21% 38	Middle East
	Total	100% 180	North Africa
				Sub Saharan Africa
				South Asia
				Minority/Indigenous
				populations South East Asia
				Other
				East Asia
				South and Central
				America

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Venetia Argyropoulou Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Venetia Argyropoulou Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Venetia Argyropoulou Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Greece Data Summary
	Fields of Law Refugee and asylum law 15% %	#	97	Fields of Law
	Immigration law Family law Sites International human The most common site of cultural expertise was 'In court' (47%, 143), followed by 'Through 14% 92 10% 61 9% 58 NGOs' (20%, 60) then 'Out of Court' (15%, 45), In Universities' (7%, 21) and 'In detention rights law Centres' (45, 11), with all remaining categories receiving 3% or less.
	Administrative law	7%		42
	Criminal law	6%		40
	Inheritance law	6%		39
	European law	4%		25
	Property law	4%		23
	Business and commercial	4%		23	Refugee and asylum law
	law				Immigration law
	Medical and bio law	3%		18	Family law
	Private international law 3%		17	International human rights law
	Health law Contracts and obligations 2% 3%		16 15	Administrative law Criminal law Inheritance law
	Constitutional law	2%		14	European law
	Intellectual and patent	2%		14	Property law
	law				Business and commercial law
	Environmental law	2%		11	Medical and bio law
	Sports law	2%		10	Private international law
	Labour law	1%		7	Health law
	Financial law	1%		4	Contracts and obligations
	Other (please specify) Total	0% 100% 629 3	Constitutional law Intellectual and patent law Environmental law
					Sports law
					Labour law
					Financial law
					Other

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  With regards to the question on interest in the teaching program, the most common response was 'Interested in teaching themselves' (70%, 33), followed by 'Know professional organisations interested in teaching' (11%, 5), and other (19%, 9).

					Contribution to a law
	Organisations interested in a teaching program	database
	Organisations interested in a teaching program	%	#	I would like to contribute to a database on cultural expertise Organisations interested in a teaching
	Know professional		11% 5	I would not like to contribute to a program
	organisations interested in			database on cultural expertise
	teaching
	Interested in teaching		70% 33
	themselves
	Other		19% 9
	Total		100% 47
		%	#		Know professional organisations Usefulness of a teaching interested in teaching
					program on cultural Interested in teaching themselves
					Other	expertise
	Definitely yes	33% 60
	Probably yes	27% 50
	Might or might not	31% 57
	Probably not	5%	9
	Definitely not	4%	7
	Total	100% 183
					Definitely yes	Probably yes
					Might or might not Probably not
					Definitely not

Disciplines

Modalities

Appointment of Experts

The most common factor influencing the decision to appoint was 'The law allows' (20%, 95), followed by 'The court is keen to hear cultural arguments' (16%, 76), 'Cost' (14%, 65), 'Client request' (13%, 60), 'Advised by the court' (9%, 43), 'Successful legal outcomes' (8%, 38), 'Time' (7%, 36), and 'The reputation of the expert' (7%, 32), with all remaining categories accounting for 4% or less.

Disciplines

Reuse of cultural expertise

The two most frequent responses to the question of the reuse of cultural expertise were 'Unique and not repeatable experience' (48%, 71), followed by 'Cultural expert witnessing is applicable to similar cases' (33%, 48), 'Reuse only within the same country/legal field' (19%, 28) and 'Other' (1%, 1).

Reuse of cultural expertise

Impact

Components of Impact

The most common components of impact include 'Reliable sources of contents' (21%, 115), followed by 'First-hand experience' (17%, 91), 'Use of statistics' (16%, 88), 'Stringent conclusions' (11%, 63), 'Reputation of experts' (10%, 54), 'Remuneration of experts' (7%, 38), 'Quantitative assessment of risk' (6%, 32), 'Advocacy' (6%, 31) and 'Style' (6%, 31).

Reuse of cultural expertise

Reputation of Experts

The majority of experts indicated that their 'Expert opinions have been successful' (59%, 16), followed by 'Regularly instructed/appointed as an expert for many years' (37%, 10) and 'Other' (4%,1).

Competitiveness


CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) PI

Judges

The most common degree of jurisdiction for Judges was 'First degree court' (64%, 127), followed by 'Second degree court' (26%, 54) and 'Supreme court' (2%, 3). (8%, 15) chose 'Other'. The most common area of jurisdiction was 'Civil law' (47%, 92), followed by 'Criminal law' (36%, 70), then 'Family law' (14%, 28), and 'Asylum/Migration Law' (3%, 4). (65%, 11) of experts provided 'Less than 5' written reports, (12%, 2) indicated 'Between 5 and 10' and 'Other', (6%, 1) indicated 'Between 10 and 20' and 'Between 50 and 100'.

Country locations

Area of Jurisdiction

(67%, 12) of experts provided 'Less than 5' oral reports, (17%, 3) choose 'Other', followed by Between 10 and 20' (11%, 2) and 'Between 50 and 100' (6%, 1).

Annual cases

Less than 10 Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 30 Between 30 and 50

Other

Portugal Data Summary

Fields of law

The most common area of use of cultural expertise was 'Family law' (16%, 170), followed by 'Criminal law' (14%, 147), 'Immigration law' (7%, 64), 'Medical and bio law' (6%, 68), 'Refugee and asylum law' (6%, 62), 'Health law' (6%, 59) and Labour law (5%, 55) with all the remaining areas accounting for 4% or less.

Overall

Between 50 and 100

Other

Between 20 and 50

Between 10 and 20

Less than 5

Between 5 and 10

Written

Between 50 and 100

Between 10 and 20

Other

Less than 5

Between 5 and 10

Oral

Less than 5

Between 10 and 20

Between 50 and 100

Other

Portugal Data Summary

Sites

The most common site of cultural expertise was 'In court' (88%, 202), followed by 'Out of Court' (4% 10), 'Other' (3%, 7), 'In school' (1%, 3), 'Through NGOs', 'In detention Centres', 'In hospital' and 'Through private consultancy' (1%, 2) each.

Fields of Law

Typology of Experts

The most common response to the question regarding the expert type was 'University professors' (41%, 138), followed by 'Native language speakers' (38%, 125) then 'Country experts' (9%, 32), 'Native lawyers' (8%, 28), 'Community leaders' (2%, 8) and 'Religious leaders' (2%, 7).

Sites

In

Discipline

The respondent who selected 'University professors' were asked to specify the disciplines of those professors. The most common response was 'Law' (43%, 61) followed by 'Sociology' (30%, 43), 'Linguistic' (16%, 22), 'Political science' (5%, 7), 'Anthropology' (4%, 6) and 'History' (2%, 2).

Expert Type

University professors

Native language speakers

Country experts

Native lawyers

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Portugal Data Summary

Reuse of cultural expertise

The most frequent response to the question of the reuse of cultural expertise was 'Unique and not repeatable experience' (73%, 217) followed by 'Cultural expertise is applicable in similar cases' (18%, 55), 'Reuse only within the same country/legal field' (6%, 17). (3%, 10) choose 'Other'.

Reuse of cultural expertise

Usefulness

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of cultural expertise was 'Very useful' (31%, 99), followed by 'Moderately useful' (30%, 94), 'Extremely useful' (21%, 66), 'Slightly useful' (15%, 47) and 'Not at all useful' (3%, 10).

Components of impact

Competitiveness

Experts thought that their expertise was competitive because of 'Balance between competence and cost' (57%, 4), followed by 'Competence' (29%, 2) and 'Reputation' (14%, 1).

Competitiveness

Reputation of Experts

The majority of experts said that they had been 'Regularly instructed/ appointed as expert for many years' (58%, 11), followed by 'Other' (32%, 6), and 'The cases in which expert opinion was provided were successful' (10%, 2).

Reputation of experts

Organisations interested in a teaching program

With regards to the question on interest in the teaching program, the most common response was 'Interested in teaching cultural expertise themselves' (63%, 36), followed by 'Know educational organisations which may be interested' (23%, 13) and 'Know professional organisations that may be interested' (14%, 8).

Usefulness of a teaching program on cultural expertise

Probably

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

		Portugal Data Summary
	Lawyers Out of the 220 lawyers who responded, (42%, 93) indicated 'Mid-career', followed by Degree of Jurisdiction
	'Senior' (35%, 76) and 'Junior' (23%, 51).
	Career Stage	%	#
	Mid-career	42%	93
	Senior	35%	76
	Junior	23%	51	First degree court	Second degree court
				Supreme court	Other
	Total	100%	220
	Civil Law	% 47% 92 #	Area of Jurisdiction
	Criminal Law	36% 70
	Family Law	14% 28
	Asylum/Migration Law 3%	4
	Total	100% 194
				Civil Law	Criminal Law
				Family Law	Other
				Asylum/Migration Law Constitutional Law

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

For the areas of law practiced, 'Family law' (13%, 112) was the most common, followed by 'Contract and obligations' (13%, 110), 'Labour law' (11%, 101), 'Criminal Law' (11%, 97) and 'Business and commercial law' (10%, 91), 'Inheritance law' (8%, 74), 'Banking bankruptcy, and insolvency law' (6%, 51), Property law (5%, 48), 'Administrative law' (5%, 47) with all the remaining areas accounting for 4%, or less.

Portugal Data Summary CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

	Portugal Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova
		Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019
			Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Areas of Law Family law Experts The most common expert type was 'Cultural mediator' (52%, 11) followed by % # 13% 112 Areas of Law Frequency
	Contract and obligations 'Translator/interpreter' (29%, 6) 'Expert witness' (14%, 3) and 'Other' (5%, 1). 13% 110 Frequency of involvement
	Labour law To the question of how many experts did they instruct annually, most responding judges and 11% 101
	Career Stage lawyers (70%, 221) chose 'Less than 10', followed by 'Other' (16%, 49), 'Between 10 and 20' Criminal law 11% 97 Business and commercial law 10% 91 Expert Type % # Expert Type (7%, 23), 'Between 30 and 50' (4%, 11) and 'Between 20 and 30' (3%, 9).
	Inheritance law Cultural mediator Annual cases	52% 11 %	8% #	74
	Banking bankruptcy, and insolvency law Translator/interpreter 29% 6 Less than 10 70%	6% 221	51
	Property law Administrative law Between 10 and 20 Expert witness Between 20 and 30	7% 14% 3 3%	5% 5% 23 9	48 47	Family law Contract and obligations
	Immigration law Other Between 30 and 50	5% 4%	1	4% 11	31	Labour law
	Constitutional law European law Total Other Intellectual and patent law 16% 100% 21 Total 100% 313 2% 2% 49 2%	19 17 14	Mid-career Criminal law Inheritance law Senior Translator/interpreter Junior Business and commercial law Cultural mediator
	Environmental law			1%	11	Banking bankruptcy, and insolvency law Expert witness
	Financial law			1%	10	Property law Other
	Health law Private international law International human rights law 1% 1% 1% The most common responses to the question regarding area of specialisation were 'North 9 8 Administrative law Immigration law Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, Minority/Indigenous populations in Europe (17%, 2) 8 Refugee and asylum law 1% Constitutional law each, followed by 'South Asia', 'East Asia', 'South East Asia' and 'Central and South 8 Sport law 1% America' (8%, 1) each. European law 7 Medical and bio law 1% 6 Intellectual and patent law Area of Specialisation % # Area of Specialisation
	Total North Africa	17%	100% 879 2	Environmental law
						Financial law
	Sub-Saharan Africa	17%	2		Health law
	Middle East	17%	2		Private international law
					International human rights law North Africa
	Minority/Indigenous populations in Europe South Asia East Asia	17% 8% 8%	2 1 1	Sub-Saharan Africa Refugee and asylum law Middle East Sport law Minority/Indigenous populations in Europe Medical and bio law South Asia
	South East Asia	8%	1	East Asia
	Central and South America 8%	1	South East Asia
	Total	100% 12

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Fields of Law	%	#
	Family law	16% 170
	Criminal law	14% 147
	Immigration law	7%	74
	Medical and bio law	6%	68
	Refugee and asylum law	6%	62
	Health law	6%	59
	Labour law	5%	55
	Contracts and obligations	4%	48
	International human rights	4%	48
	law
	Environmental law	4%	46
	Business and commercial law 4%	41
	Property law	3%	34
	Administrative law	3%	31
	Banking, bankruptcy, and	3%	30
	insolvency law
	European law	2%	26
	Intellectual and patent law	2%	25
	Inheritance law	2%	24
	Financial law	2%	23
	Constitutional law	2%	22
	Private international law	2%	20
	Sports law	2%	17
	Total	100% 1070

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

Portugal Data Summary CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Expert Type	%	#
	University professors	41%	138
	Native language	38%	125
	speakers
	Country experts	9%	32
	Native lawyers	8%	28
	Community leaders	2%	8	court
	Religious leaders	2%	7	Through NGOs
				Out of court
	Total	100% 338
				In detention centres
				Other
				In schools
				In hospitals
				Through private consultancy

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Portugal Data Summary Portugal Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova
	Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019
		Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	How experts are selected Client request How experts started their Remuneration of experts career Set price per report	% 22% 169 # % # % # 50% 3		How experts are selected How experts started their career
	Other	67%		6
	Experts facilitate successful Referred by a colleague legal outcomes Voluntary basis	22% 19% 149 2 33% 2
	The law allows Contacted directly by clients 11% 16% 125 1 Standard hourly rate 17% 1
	Advised by the court Total Total	8% 100% 9 63 100% 6			Referred by a colleague Other
	The court is keen to hear	7%		56
	cultural arguments					Client request	Contacted directly by clients
	The reputation of the expert 7%		51		Experts facilitate successful legal outcomes
	Useful for an	6%		48		The law allows
	out of court settlement					Advised by the court
	Cost Who instructs the experts	6%	%	46	#	The court is keen to hear cultural arguments Who instruct the
	The court/ prosecutor/ Home Work as an expert for NGOs	5%	37 22% 5	The reputation of the expert experts
	Office have already appointed their expert Contacted directly by clients		22% 5	Useful for an out of court settlement
						Cost
	Time Instructed by lawyers as need	4%	32 17% 4
	arises					The court/ prosecutor/ Home Office have
	Total Other	100% 776 17% 4	already appointed their expert Time Work as an expert for NGOs
						Contacted directly by clients
	Instructed by courts		13% 3	Instructed by lawyers as need arises
	Instructed by the Ministry of the	9%		2	Other
	Most experts, when asked how they started giving expert opinions, chose 'Other' (67%, 6), Interior Instructed by courts
	followed by 'Referred by a colleague' (22%, 2), and 'Contacted directly by clients' (11%, 1). Total Instructed by the Ministry of the 100% 23 Interior
							14

Experts most frequently 'Work as an expert for NGOs' (22%, 5), also (22%, 5) chose 'Contacted directly by clients' followed by 'Instructed by lawyers as need arises' (17%, 4), 'Other' (17%, 4), 'Instructed by courts' (13%, 3), and 'Instructed by the Ministry of the Interior (9%, 2).

Areas of law where cultural expertise is more useful

	Portugal Data Summary Portugal Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova
		Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019
			Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Usefulness of	%	#
	cultural expertise				Usefulness of cultural
	Extremely useful	21%	66		expertise
	Very useful	31%	99
	Moderately useful	30%	94
	Slightly useful	15%	47
	Not at all useful	3%	10		Extremely useful	Very useful
					Moderately useful Slightly useful
					Not at all useful
	Total	100% 316		Stringent conclusions
	Usefulness: fields				Reliable sources of contents
	First-hand experience Cultural expertise is most useful in 'Migration law' (22%, 56), followed by 'More useful in
	Use of statistics criminal law rather than civil law' (43%, 111), 'Other' (9%, 23) and 'More useful in civil law
	than criminal law' (26%, 68).			Advocacy
			%	#	Reputation of the experts Areas of law where more
					Quantitative assessment of useful
	Migration law		22% 56	risk Remuneration of experts
	More in criminal law than in	43% 111	Style
	civil law
	Other		9%	23
	More in civil law than in criminal law	26% 68	Migration law
	Total		100% 258	More in criminal law than in civil law
					Other
					More in civil law than in criminal law

  The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of a program teaching cultural expertise was 'Probably yes' (46%, 122), followed by 'Definitely yes' (38%, 102), 'Might or might not' (13%, 34), 'Probably not' (2%, 6) and 'Definitely not' (1%, 4).

	Portugal Data Summary Portugal Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova
				Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019
					Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Improved Access Database Capacity Building
	Regarding the question of the usefulness of a case law database, the most common response
	was that it would be 'Very useful' (47%, 125), followed by 'Somewhat useful' (45%, 119), of
	'No use' (7%, 19). (1%, 2) chose 'Other'.
	Usefulness of case law database Very useful Usefulness of a	%	% 47% 125 # #	Competitiveness Usefulness of case law database
	Somewhat useful teaching program on cultural expertise			45% 119
	No use Probably yes		7% 46% 122	19
	Other Definitely yes		1% 38% 102	3
	Total Might or might not		100% 266 13% 34	Competence
	Probably not		2%	6	Reputation
						Balance between competence and cost Very useful Somewhat useful
	Definitely not		1%	4	No use	Other
	Contribution to law database Total 100% 268
	Most respondents did wish to contribute to the establishment of a case law database (68%,
	116), while close to one third of respondents did not (32%, 55).
	Contribution to a law database I would like to	% 68%	%	# 116 #	Contribution to a law Reputation of experts database
	Regularly contribute to a			42%	5
	instructed/appointed as database on cultural
	an expert for many years expertise
	I would not like to	32%		55
	Other contribute to a			50%	6
	Expert opinions have database on cultural expertise been successful Total Total	8% 100% 12 1 100% 171	Regularly instructed/appointed as an expert for many years Other I would like to contribute to a database on cultural expertise
						Expert opinions have been successful I would not like to contribute to a database
						on cultural expertise
						21

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Ekaterina Gorbunova Date of First Publication: 20/07/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Portugal Data Summary
	Organisations interested in a teaching program	%	#	Organisations interested in a teaching program
	Know educational	23% 13
	institutions interested in
	teaching
	Know professional	14% 8
	organisations interested in
	teaching
	Interested in teaching	63% 36
	themselves
	Total	100% 57
				Know educational institutions interested in
				teaching
				Know professional organisations interested in
				teaching
				Interested in teaching themselves
				yes	Definitely yes
				Might or might not Probably not
				Definitely not
					22

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

Discipline

Modalities Appointment of Experts

The most common factor influencing the decision to appoint was 'Client request' (22%, 169), followed by 'Experts facilitate successful legal outcomes' (19%, 149), 'The law allows' (16%, 125), 'Advised by the court' (8%, 63), 'The court is keen to hear cultural arguments' (7%, 56), 'The reputation of the expert' (7%, 51), 'Useful for an out of court settlement' (6%, 48), 'Cost' (6%. 46), 'The court/ prosecutor/ Home Office have already appointed their expert' (5%, 37) and 'Time' (4%, 32).

Discipline

Remuneration of cultural expertise

Over half of responses indicated that experts were paid at a 'Set price per report' (50%, 3), followed by 'Voluntary basis' (33%, 2) and 'Standard hourly rate' (17%, 1).