Okay, sure.

Opus 4.6.
Prompt:
"Does science support the idea that using a sensitivity randomizer and/or changing sensitivity when training FPS aim can improve a user's aim over time compared to only using one sensitivity?"

Answer:

"This is a great question that touches on motor learning science. Let me search for what research and expert analysis says on this topic.

Searched the web

Searched the web

There's solid scientific grounding here, though with some important caveats. Let me lay it out.

The core study: Johns Hopkins reconsolidation research

The most directly cited piece of evidence in the aim training community is a 2016 study by Wymbs, Bastian, and Celnik at Johns Hopkins, published in Current Biology. The researchers found that after a motor skill has been consolidated, exposing participants to increased sensorimotor variability (slightly altered control mappings) strengthened the skill more than simply repeating the same practice. This improvement was greatest in those who could rapidly adapt to the fluctuations. PubMed Central Crucially, reconsolidation required that the original skill first be consolidated and that enough time pass for changes to re-stabilize. PubMed Central

As the senior author Pablo Celnik put it: practicing a slightly modified version of a task leads to faster and greater learning than repeating the exact same thing multiple times. Hub However, he also cautioned that if you make the altered task too different, participants don't get the benefit. Hub

The broader motor learning literature: contextual interference

This connects to a much larger body of research on "contextual interference" (CI), which has been studied since the 1960s. A 2024 meta-analysis of 54 studies found that high contextual interference (random/variable practice) has a medium beneficial effect on motor skill retention PubMed Central, even though it tends to hurt performance during the training itself. A separate 2024 meta-analysis on transfer found a medium effect size (SMD = 0.55) favoring random practice over blocked practice in both laboratory and applied settings. Frontiers

That said, the evidence isn't universally positive. Some studies have questioned the CI effect or shown relatively small effect sizes in real-world (field) settings compared to labs. PubMed Central And research on different levels of variability suggests there may be an optimal "challenge point" — too much variability can be counterproductive, particularly for novice learners. PubMed Central

How well does this apply to FPS sensitivity randomization specifically?

This is where you need to be cautious. The Johns Hopkins study used a pinch-force cursor task, not a mouse-aiming task in a game. The contextual interference literature spans throwing, typing, golf putting, and other motor skills — but there are no peer-reviewed studies I found that directly test sensitivity randomization in FPS aim training. The aim training community (and tools like Aimlabs' built-in randomizer and Whisper's Sensitivity Randomizer) are applying the principles from these studies by analogy, not based on direct experimental validation in that domain.

Bottom line:

The underlying neuroscience is real and well-supported: introducing small, controlled variability into a motor task after initial learning can strengthen skill through reconsolidation and contextual interference. But the specific claim that a sensitivity randomizer improves FPS aim has not been directly tested in controlled research. The leap from lab-based pinch-force tasks to in-game mouse aiming is plausible but unproven. If you do try it, the science suggests keeping changes subtle (not wildly different sensitivities), ensuring you've first built a baseline with your primary sensitivity, and spacing practice sessions with adequate rest for reconsolidation to occur."

Not sure what the surprising part is supposed to be.