Literature DB >> 20861427

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

Kunlin Wei1, Daniel Wert, Konrad Körding.   

Abstract

We constantly make small errors during movement and use them to adapt our future movements. Movement experiments often probe this error-driven learning by perturbing movements and analyzing the after-effects. Past studies have applied perturbations of varying nature such as visual disturbances, position- or velocity-dependent forces and modified inertia properties of the limb. However, little is known about how the specific nature of a perturbation influences subsequent movements. For a single perturbation trial, the nature of a perturbation may be highly uncertain to the nervous system, given that it receives only noisy information. One hypothesis is that the nervous system can use this rough estimate to partially correct for the perturbation on the next trial. Alternatively, the nervous system could ignore uncertain information about the nature of the perturbation and resort to a nonspecific adaptation. To study how the brain estimates and responds to incomplete sensory information, we test these two hypotheses using a trial-by-trial adaptation experiment. On each trial, the nature of the perturbation was chosen from six distinct types, including a visuomotor rotation and different force fields. We observed that corrective forces aiming to oppose the perturbation in the following trial were independent of the nature of the perturbation. Our results suggest that the nervous system uses a nonspecific strategy when it has high uncertainty about the nature of perturbations during trial-by-trial learning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20861427      PMCID: PMC3007651          DOI: 10.1152/jn.01025.2009

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


  34 in total

1.  Influence of interaction force levels on degree of motor adaptation in a stable dynamic force field.

Authors:  E J Lai; A J Hodgson; T E Milner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Quantifying generalization from trial-by-trial behavior of adaptive systems that learn with basis functions: theory and experiments in human motor control.

Authors:  Opher Donchin; Joseph T Francis; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2003-10-08       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Calibration of visually guided reaching is driven by error-corrective learning and internal dynamics.

Authors:  Sen Cheng; Philip N Sabes
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Interpreting ambiguous visual information in motor learning.

Authors:  Jennifer K Dionne; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise.

Authors:  Robert J van Beers
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Primitives for motor adaptation reflect correlated neural tuning to position and velocity.

Authors:  Gary C Sing; Wilsaan M Joiner; Thrishantha Nanayakkara; Jordan B Brayanov; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 17.173

7.  A theory of cerebellar cortex.

Authors:  D Marr
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task.

Authors:  R Shadmehr; F A Mussa-Ivaldi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Learning optimal adaptation strategies in unpredictable motor tasks.

Authors:  Daniel A Braun; Ad Aertsen; Daniel M Wolpert; Carsten Mehring
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics.

Authors:  Rieko Osu; Etienne Burdet; David W Franklin; Theodore E Milner; Mitsuo Kawato
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  15 in total

1.  State dependence of adaptation of force output following movement observation.

Authors:  Paul A Wanda; Gang Li; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Relative sensitivity of explicit reaiming and implicit motor adaptation.

Authors:  Sarah A Hutter; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Torque response to external perturbation during unconstrained goal-directed arm movements.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Andreas Straube; Thomas Eggert
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Saccadic adaptation to a systematically varying disturbance.

Authors:  Carlos R Cassanello; Sven Ohl; Martin Rolfs
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  The Neural Feedback Response to Error As a Teaching Signal for the Motor Learning System.

Authors:  Scott T Albert; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Robust Control in Human Reaching Movements: A Model-Free Strategy to Compensate for Unpredictable Disturbances.

Authors:  Frédéric Crevecoeur; Stephen H Scott; Tyler Cluff
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Treadmill-gait slip training in community-dwelling older adults: mechanisms of immediate adaptation for a progressive ascending-mixed-intensity protocol.

Authors:  Yiru Wang; Shuaijie Wang; Anna Lee; Yi-Chung Pai; Tanvi Bhatt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Error variability affects the after effects following motor learning of lateral balance control during walking in people with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jui-Te Lin; Chao-Jung Hsu; Weena Dee; David Chen; William Zev Rymer; Ming Wu
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.386

9.  Structural learning in feedforward and feedback control.

Authors:  Nada Yousif; Jörn Diedrichsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  How does our motor system determine its learning rate?

Authors:  Robert J van Beers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.