Literature DB >> 27832611

Individual differences in implicit motor learning: task specificity in sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning.

Alit Stark-Inbar1, Meher Raza2, Jordan A Taylor3, Richard B Ivry2,4.   

Abstract

In standard taxonomies, motor skills are typically treated as representative of implicit or procedural memory. We examined two emblematic tasks of implicit motor learning, sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning, asking whether individual differences in learning are correlated between these tasks, as well as how individual differences within each task are related to different performance variables. As a prerequisite, it was essential to establish the reliability of learning measures for each task. Participants were tested twice on a visuomotor adaptation task and on a sequence learning task, either the serial reaction time task or the alternating reaction time task. Learning was evident in all tasks at the group level and reliable at the individual level in visuomotor adaptation and the alternating reaction time task but not in the serial reaction time task. Performance variability was predictive of learning in both domains, yet the relationship was in the opposite direction for adaptation and sequence learning. For the former, faster learning was associated with lower variability, consistent with models of sensorimotor adaptation in which learning rates are sensitive to noise. For the latter, greater learning was associated with higher variability and slower reaction times, factors that may facilitate the spread of activation required to form predictive, sequential associations. Interestingly, learning measures of the different tasks were not correlated. Together, these results oppose a shared process for implicit learning in sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning and provide insight into the factors that account for individual differences in learning within each task domain. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: We investigated individual differences in the ability to implicitly learn motor skills. As a prerequisite, we assessed whether individual differences were reliable across test sessions. We found that two commonly used tasks of implicit learning, visuomotor adaptation and the alternating serial reaction time task, exhibited good test-retest reliability in measures of learning and performance. However, the learning measures did not correlate between the two tasks, arguing against a shared process for implicit motor learning.
Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptation; implicit learning; individual differences; reliability; sequence learning

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27832611      PMCID: PMC5253399          DOI: 10.1152/jn.01141.2015

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


  94 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.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and learning: evidence from the serial reaction time task.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-03

4.  Disentangling perceptual from motor implicit sequence learning with a serial color-matching task.

Authors:  Freja Gheysen; Wim Gevers; Erik De Schutter; Hilde Van Waelvelde; Wim Fias
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  AN OBJECTIVE METHOD OF EVALUATING MUSICAL PERFORMANCE.

Authors:  C E Seashore; J Tiffin
Journal:  Science       Date:  1930-11-07       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems.

Authors:  L R Squire; S M Zola
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-11-26       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  On the development of procedural knowledge.

Authors:  D B Willingham; M J Nissen; P Bullemer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 8.  The role of strategies in motor learning.

Authors:  Jordan A Taylor; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 5.691

9.  Intentional control and implicit sequence learning.

Authors:  Leonora Wilkinson; David R Shanks
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  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

View more
  18 in total

1.  Working memory affects anticipatory behavior during implicit pattern learning.

Authors:  Srdan Medimorec; Petar Milin; Dagmar Divjak
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-09-27

2.  Individual sensorimotor adaptation characteristics are independent across orofacial speech movements and limb reaching movements.

Authors:  Nick M Kitchen; Kwang S Kim; Prince Z Wang; Robert J Hermosillo; Ludo Max
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.974

3.  Suppression of Motor Sequence Learning and Execution Through Anodal Cerebellar Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.

Authors:  Angela Voegtle; Clara Terlutter; Katharina Nikolai; Amr Farahat; Hermann Hinrichs; Catherine M Sweeney-Reed
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 3.648

4.  Human Variation in Error-Based and Reinforcement Motor Learning Is Associated With Entorhinal Volume.

Authors:  Anouk J de Brouwer; Corson N Areshenkoff; Mohammad R Rashid; J Randall Flanagan; Jordan Poppenk; Jason P Gallivan
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 4.861

5.  "Two sides of the same coin": constant motor learning speeds up, whereas variable motor learning stabilizes, speed-accuracy movements.

Authors:  Albertas Skurvydas; Andrius Satas; Dovile Valanciene; Gediminas Mamkus; Dalia Mickeviciene; Daiva Majauskiene; Marius Brazaitis
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Individual differences in proprioception predict the extent of implicit sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  Jonathan S Tsay; Hyosub E Kim; Darius E Parvin; Alissa R Stover; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 2.974

7.  No consistent effect of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Roya Jalali; R Chris Miall; Joseph M Galea
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  The Psychology of Reaching: Action Selection, Movement Implementation, and Sensorimotor Learning.

Authors:  Hyosub E Kim; Guy Avraham; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 24.137

9.  Adaptation of balancing behaviour during continuous perturbations of stance. Supra-postural visual tasks and platform translation frequency modulate adaptation rate.

Authors:  Stefania Sozzi; Antonio Nardone; Marco Schieppati
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Deconstructing Procedural Memory: Different Learning Trajectories and Consolidation of Sequence and Statistical Learning.

Authors:  Peter Simor; Zsofia Zavecz; Kata Horváth; Noémi Éltető; Csenge Török; Orsolya Pesthy; Ferenc Gombos; Karolina Janacsek; Dezso Nemeth
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-01-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.