Literature DB >> 17588186

The interference effects of non-rotated versus counter-rotated trials in visuomotor adaptation.

Mark R Hinder1, Laura Walk, Daniel G Woolley, Stephan Riek, Richard G Carson.   

Abstract

An isometric torque-production task was used to investigate interference and retention in adaptation to multiple visuomotor environments. Subjects produced isometric flexion-extension and pronation-supination elbow torques to move a cursor to acquire targets as quickly as possible. Adaptation to a 30 degrees counter-clockwise (CCW) rotation (task A), was followed by a period of rest (control), trials with no rotation (task B0), or trials with a 60 degrees clockwise (CW) rotation (task B60). For all groups, retention of task A was assessed 5 h later. With initial training, all groups reduced the angular deviation of cursor paths early in the movements, indicating feedforward adaptation. For the control group, performance at commencement of the retest was significantly better than that at the beginning of the initial learning. For the B0 group, performance in the retest of task A was not dissimilar to that at the start of the initial learning, while for the B60 group retest performance in task A was markedly worse than initially observed. Our results indicate that close juxtaposition of two visuomotor environments precludes improved retest performance in the initial environment. Data for the B60 group, specifically larger angular errors upon retest compared with initial exposures, are consistent with the presence of anterograde interference. Furthermore, full interference occurred even when the visuomotor environment encountered in the second task was not rotated (B0). This latter novel result differs from those obtained for force field learning, where interference does not occur when task B does not impose perturbing forces, i.e., when B consists of a null field (Brashers-Krug et al., Nature 382:252-255, 1996). The results are consistent with recent proposals suggesting different interference mechanisms for visuomotor (kinematic) compared to force field (dynamic) adaptations, and have implications for the use of washout trials when studying interference between multiple visuomotor environments.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17588186     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0888-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  17 in total

1.  Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching.

Authors:  J W Krakauer; M F Ghilardi; C Ghez
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning.

Authors:  M Kawato
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.627

3.  Conditions for interference versus facilitation during sequential sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  O Bock; S Schneider; J Bloomberg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Kinematics and dynamics are not represented independently in motor working memory: evidence from an interference study.

Authors:  Christine Tong; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-02-01       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Patterns of interference in sequence learning and prism adaptation inconsistent with the consolidation hypothesis.

Authors:  Kelly M Goedert; Daniel B Willingham
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.460

6.  Determining movement onsets from temporal series.

Authors:  N Teasdale; C Bard; M Fleury; D E Young; L Proteau
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 1.328

7.  Neuromuscular adaptation during skill acquisition on a two degree-of-freedom target-acquisition task: isometric torque production.

Authors:  Jonathan Shemmell; Matthew Forner; James R Tresilian; Stephan Riek; Benjamin K Barry; Richard G Carson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-06-08       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory.

Authors:  R Shadmehr; T Brashers-Krug
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1997-01-01       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Consolidation in human motor memory.

Authors:  T Brashers-Krug; R Shadmehr; E Bizzi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1996-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting.

Authors:  John W Krakauer; Claude Ghez; M Felice Ghilardi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  17 in total

1.  Evaluation of negative viscosity as upper extremity training for stroke survivors.

Authors:  Felix C Huang; James L Patton
Journal:  IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot       Date:  2011

2.  Manual skill generalization enhanced by negative viscosity.

Authors:  Felix C Huang; James L Patton; Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  The efficacy of colour cues in facilitating adaptation to opposing visuomotor rotations.

Authors:  Mark R Hinder; Daniel G Woolley; James R Tresilian; Stephan Riek; Richard G Carson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Extinction interferes with the retrieval of visuomotor memories through a mechanism involving the sensorimotor cortex.

Authors:  Jorge I Villalta; Sofia M Landi; Ana Fló; Valeria Della-Maggiore
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Manipulating visual-motor experience to probe for observation-induced after-effects in adaptation learning.

Authors:  Shannon B Lim; Beverley C Larssen; Nicola J Hodges
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  Consolidation of visuomotor adaptation memory with consistent and noisy environments.

Authors:  Rodrigo S Maeda; Steven E McGee; Daniel S Marigold
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Real-time error detection but not error correction drives automatic visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Mark R Hinder; Stephan Riek; James R Tresilian; Aymar de Rugy; Richard G Carson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Dual adaptation supports a parallel architecture of motor memory.

Authors:  Jeong-Yoon Lee; Nicolas Schweighofer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 10.  Motor learning and consolidation: the case of visuomotor rotation.

Authors:  John W Krakauer
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.622

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.