Literature DB >> 16707722

Motor adaptation to single force pulses: sensitive to direction but insensitive to within-movement pulse placement and magnitude.

Michael S Fine1, Kurt A Thoroughman.   

Abstract

Although previous experiments have identified that errors in movement induce adaptation, the precise manner in which errors determine subsequent control is poorly understood. Here we used transient pulses of force, distributed pseudo-randomly throughout a movement set, to study how the timing of feedback within a movement influenced subsequent predictive control. Human subjects generated a robust adaptive response in postpulse movements that opposed the pulse direction. Regardless of the location or magnitude of the pulse, all pulses yielded similar changes in predictive control. All current supervised and unsupervised theories of motor learning presume that adaptation is proportional to error. Current neural models that broadly encode movement velocity and adapt proportionally to motor error can mimic human insensitivity to pulse location, but cannot mimic human insensitivity to pulse magnitude. We conclude that single trial adaptation to force pulses reveals a categorical strategy that humans adopt to counter the direction, rather than the magnitude, of movement error.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16707722     DOI: 10.1152/jn.00215.2006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  42 in total

1.  Environmental experience within and across testing days determines the strength of human visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Jennifer A Semrau; Amy L Daitch; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The nervous system uses nonspecific motor learning in response to random perturbations of varying nature.

Authors:  Kunlin Wei; Daniel Wert; Konrad Körding
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation.

Authors:  Mollie K Marko; Adrian M Haith; Michelle D Harran; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Characteristics of Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation Revealed by Task-irrelevant Clamped Feedback.

Authors:  J Ryan Morehead; Jordan A Taylor; Darius E Parvin; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Explaining savings for visuomotor adaptation: linear time-invariant state-space models are not sufficient.

Authors:  Eric Zarahn; Gregory D Weston; Johnny Liang; Pietro Mazzoni; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Flexible explicit but rigid implicit learning in a visuomotor adaptation task.

Authors:  Krista M Bond; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  The 24-h savings of adaptation to novel movement dynamics initially reflects the recall of previous performance.

Authors:  Katrina P Nguyen; Weiwei Zhou; Erin McKenna; Katrina Colucci-Chang; Laurence C Jayet Bray; Eghbal A Hosseini; Laith Alhussein; Meena Rezazad; Wilsaan M Joiner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Somatosensory Cortex Plays an Essential Role in Forelimb Motor Adaptation in Mice.

Authors:  Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis; Alexander Mathis; Naoshige Uchida
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  Changes in performance monitoring during sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  Joaquin A Anguera; Rachael D Seidler; William J Gehring
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Reduction in learning rates associated with anterograde interference results from interactions between different timescales in motor adaptation.

Authors:  Gary C Sing; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.