Literature DB >> 27150316

Cognitive attribution of the source of an error in object-lifting results in differences in motor generalization.

Kelene Fercho1,2, Lee A Baugh3,4.   

Abstract

To lift an object, the motor system must predict the weight of the object and use this information to program appropriate lifting forces. If this prediction is erroneous, people may assign blame for the error to either themselves or an external source-a process called credit assignment. In the present study, we explored the role of credit assignment on weight predictions during a lifting task. Participants were told that the EMG surface electrodes attached to their lifting hand were either part of a "passive" system that recorded muscular activity, or part of an "active" system that would apply energy to the muscle, influencing weight perception. Participants performed 90 lifts of the training blocks, followed by 10 lifts of a newly encountered larger test block. In between training and test trials, the experimenter turned off the recording system and removed the surface electrodes for participants in the "active" group. For each lift, we determined the initial peak rate of change of vertical load force rate and load-phase duration, estimates of predicted object weight. Analysis of the first 10 training lifts and the last 10 training lifts revealed no effect of Active versus Passive EMG on weight predictions. However, after removing the EMG equipment, participants in the "active" group failed to scale their predictive load forces in the same manner as those in the "passive" condition when lifting a novel block. We conclude that cognitive information may play a role in credit assignment, influencing weight prediction when lifting novel objects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Credit assignment; Load force; Motor learning; Object lifting; Weight prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27150316     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4670-0

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


  42 in total

1.  The size of the visual size cue used for programming manipulative forces during precision grip.

Authors:  M Mon-Williams; A H Murray
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  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

Review 3.  Motor skill acquisition.

Authors:  K M Newell
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 24.137

4.  Two waves of a long-lasting aftereffect of prism adaptation measured over 7 days.

Authors:  Y Hatada; R C Miall; Y Rossetti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-18       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Persistence of motor memories reflects statistics of the learning event.

Authors:  Vincent S Huang; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?

Authors:  JoAnn Kluzik; Jörn Diedrichsen; Reza Shadmehr; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  Perception of force and weight: theory and research.

Authors:  L A Jones
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects.

Authors:  A M Gordon; G Westling; K J Cole; R S Johansson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  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

10.  Lifting without seeing: the role of vision in perceiving and acting upon the size weight illusion.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Different Error Size During Locomotor Adaptation Affects Transfer to Overground Walking Poststroke.

Authors:  Carolina C Alcântara; Charalambos C Charalambous; Susanne M Morton; Thiago L Russo; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 3.919

2.  A locomotor learning paradigm using distorted visual feedback elicits strategic learning.

Authors:  Margaret A French; Susanne M Morton; Charalambos C Charalambous; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Credit assignment between body and object probed by an object transportation task.

Authors:  Gaiqing Kong; Zhihao Zhou; Qining Wang; Konrad Kording; Kunlin Wei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.