Literature DB >> 19019979

Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation?

Kunlin Wei1, Konrad Körding.   

Abstract

During motor adaptation the nervous system constantly uses error information to improve future movements. Today's mainstream models simply assume that the nervous system adapts linearly and proportionally to errors. However, not all movement errors are relevant to our own action. The environment may transiently disturb the movement production-for example, a gust of wind blows the tennis ball away from its intended trajectory. Apparently the nervous system should not adapt its motor plan in the subsequent tennis strokes based on this irrelevant movement error. We hypothesize that the nervous system estimates the relevance of each observed error and adapts strongly only to relevant errors. Here we present a Bayesian treatment of this problem. The model calculates how likely an error is relevant to the motor plant and derives an ideal adaptation strategy that leads to the most precise movements. This model predicts that adaptation should be a nonlinear function of the size of an error. In reaching experiments we found strong evidence for the predicted nonlinear strategy. The model also explains published data on saccadic gain adaptation, adaptation to visuomotor rotations, and force perturbations. Our study suggests that the nervous system constantly and effortlessly estimates the relevance of observed movement errors for successful motor adaptation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19019979      PMCID: PMC2657056          DOI: 10.1152/jn.90545.2008

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


  36 in total

1.  Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; M Kawato
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  1998-10

2.  System identification applied to a visuomotor task: near-optimal human performance in a noisy changing task.

Authors:  R J Baddeley; H A Ingram; R C Miall
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Covariation in natural causal induction.

Authors:  P W Cheng; L R Novick
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity.

Authors:  Sergei Gepshtein; Johannes Burge; Marc O Ernst; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-12-28       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 6.  The binding problem.

Authors:  A Treisman
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.627

7.  Effect of visual error size on saccade adaptation in monkey.

Authors:  Farrel R Robinson; Christopher T Noto; Scott E Bevans
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-04-23       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets.

Authors:  Alison Gopnik; Clark Glymour; David M Sobel; Laura E Schulz; Tamar Kushnir; David Danks
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Adaptation of aimed arm movements to sensorimotor discordance: evidence for direction-independent gain control.

Authors:  O Bock
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1992-10-31       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Resolving multisensory conflict: a strategy for balancing the costs and benefits of audio-visual integration.

Authors:  Neil W Roach; James Heron; Paul V McGraw
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

View more
  161 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.  Proprioceptive recalibration in the right and left hands following abrupt visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Danielle Salomonczyk; Denise Y P Henriques; Erin K Cressman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Beside the point: motor adaptation without feedback-based error correction in task-irrelevant conditions.

Authors:  Sydney Y Schaefer; Iris L Shelly; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Time gain influences adaptive visual-motor isometric force control.

Authors:  Xiaogang Hu; Molly M Mazich; Karl M Newell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Implicit motor learning from target error during explicit reach control.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-09-04       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  Natural error patterns enable transfer of motor learning to novel contexts.

Authors:  Gelsy Torres-Oviedo; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  Motor control is decision-making.

Authors:  Daniel M Wolpert; Michael S Landy
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 6.627

9.  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

10.  Did I do that? Detecting a perturbation to visual feedback in a reaching task.

Authors:  Elon Gaffin-Cahn; Todd E Hudson; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.