Literature DB >> 24794296

Environmental consistency determines the rate of motor adaptation.

Luis Nicolas Gonzalez Castro1, Alkis M Hadjiosif2, Matthew A Hemphill2, Maurice A Smith3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The motor system has the remarkable ability not only to learn but also to learn how fast it should learn. However, the mechanisms behind this ability are not well understood. Previous studies have posited that the rate of adaptation in a given environment is determined by Bayesian sensorimotor integration based on the amount of variability in the state of the environment. However, experimental results have failed to support several predictions of this theory.
RESULTS: We show that the rate at which the motor system adapts to changes in the environment is primarily determined not by the degree to which environmental change occurs but by the degree to which the changes that do occur persist from one movement to the next, i.e., the consistency of the environment. We demonstrate a striking double dissociation whereby feedback response strength is predicted by environmental variability rather than consistency, whereas adaptation rate is predicted by environmental consistency rather than variability. We proceed to elucidate the role of stimulus repetition in speeding up adaptation and find that repetition can greatly potentiate the effect of consistency, although unlike consistency, repetition alone does not increase adaptation rate. By leveraging this understanding, we demonstrate that the rate of motor adaptation can be modulated over a range that encompasses a 20-fold increase from lowest to highest.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the mechanisms that determine the rate of motor adaptation could lead to the principled design of improved procedures for motor training and rehabilitation. Regimens designed to control environmental consistency and repetition during training might yield faster, more robust motor learning.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24794296      PMCID: PMC4120830          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  37 in total

1.  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

2.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Konrad P Körding; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Rapidly learned stimulus expectations alter perception of motion.

Authors:  Matthew Chalk; Aaron R Seitz; Peggy Seriès
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Long-term retention explained by a model of short-term learning in the adaptive control of reaching.

Authors:  Wilsaan M Joiner; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 2.714

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.  Rapid reshaping of human motor generalization.

Authors:  Kurt A Thoroughman; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Uncertainty of feedback and state estimation determines the speed of motor adaptation.

Authors:  Kunlin Wei; Konrad Körding
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  A computational model of limb impedance control based on principles of internal model uncertainty.

Authors:  Djordje Mitrovic; Stefan Klanke; Rieko Osu; Mitsuo Kawato; Sethu Vijayakumar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

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

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
  44 in total

1.  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

2.  Flexible Control of Safety Margins for Action Based on Environmental Variability.

Authors:  Alkis M Hadjiosif; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Formation of a long-term memory for visuomotor adaptation following only a few trials of practice.

Authors:  David M Huberdeau; Adrian M Haith; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Formation of model-free motor memories during motor adaptation depends on perturbation schedule.

Authors:  Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry; Philippe Lefèvre
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  A memory of errors in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  David J Herzfeld; Pavan A Vaswani; Mollie K Marko; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Task Errors Drive Memories That Improve Sensorimotor Adaptation.

Authors:  Li-Ann Leow; Welber Marinovic; Aymar de Rugy; Timothy J Carroll
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Seeing the Errors You Feel Enhances Locomotor Performance but Not Learning.

Authors:  Ryan T Roemmich; Andrew W Long; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 10.834

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.