Literature DB >> 18596178

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

Eric Zarahn1, Gregory D Weston, Johnny Liang, Pietro Mazzoni, John W Krakauer.   

Abstract

Adaptation of the motor system to sensorimotor perturbations is a type of learning relevant for tool use and coping with an ever-changing body. Memory for motor adaptation can take the form of savings: an increase in the apparent rate constant of readaptation compared with that of initial adaptation. The assessment of savings is simplified if the sensory errors a subject experiences at the beginning of initial adaptation and the beginning of readaptation are the same. This can be accomplished by introducing either 1) a sufficiently small number of counterperturbation trials (counterperturbation paradigm [CP]) or 2) a sufficiently large number of zero-perturbation trials (washout paradigm [WO]) between initial adaptation and readaptation. A two-rate, linear time-invariant state-space model (SSM(LTI,2)) was recently shown to theoretically produce savings for CP. However, we reasoned from superposition that this model would be unable to explain savings for WO. Using the same task (planar reaching) and type of perturbation (visuomotor rotation), we found comparable savings for both CP and WO paradigms. Although SSM(LTI,2) explained some degree of savings for CP it failed completely for WO. We conclude that for visuomotor rotation, savings in general is not simply a consequence of LTI dynamics. Instead savings for visuomotor rotation involves metalearning, which we show can be modeled as changes in system parameters across the phases of an adaptation experiment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18596178      PMCID: PMC2585408          DOI: 10.1152/jn.90529.2008

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


  16 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

2.  Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories.

Authors:  J W Krakauer; Z M Pine; M F Ghilardi; C Ghez
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Is interlimb transfer of force-field adaptation a cognitive response to the sudden introduction of load?

Authors:  Nicole Malfait; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Memory of learning facilitates saccadic adaptation in the monkey.

Authors:  Yoshiko Kojima; Yoshiki Iwamoto; Kaoru Yoshida
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-08-25       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks.

Authors:  Graham Caithness; Rieko Osu; Paul Bays; Henry Chase; Jessica Klassen; Mitsuo Kawato; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 6.167

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

Authors:  Mark R Hinder; Laura Walk; Daniel G Woolley; Stephan Riek; Richard G Carson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Modeling sensorimotor learning with linear dynamical systems.

Authors:  Sen Cheng; Philip N Sabes
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.026

8.  Internal representations of the motor apparatus: implications from generalization in visuomotor learning.

Authors:  H Imamizu; Y Uno; M Kawato
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 9.  Metaplasticity: the plasticity of synaptic plasticity.

Authors:  W C Abraham; M F Bear
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 13.837

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
  65 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.  Protection and expression of human motor memories.

Authors:  Sarah E Pekny; Sarah E Criscimagna-Hemminger; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  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

4.  The training schedule affects the stability, not the magnitude, of the interlimb transfer of learned dynamics.

Authors:  Wilsaan M Joiner; Jordan B Brayanov; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models.

Authors:  Vincent S Huang; Adrian Haith; Pietro Mazzoni; John W Krakauer
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Bihemispheric transcranial direct current stimulation enhances effector-independent representations of motor synergy and sequence learning.

Authors:  Sheena Waters-Metenier; Masud Husain; Tobias Wiestler; Jörn Diedrichsen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task.

Authors:  Jordan A Taylor; John W Krakauer; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  A long-memory model of motor learning in the saccadic system: a regime-switching approach.

Authors:  Aaron L Wong; Mark Shelhamer
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 3.934

9.  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

Review 10.  Structure learning in action.

Authors:  Daniel A Braun; Carsten Mehring; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2009-08-29       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.