Literature DB >> 30207865

Relative sensitivity of explicit reaiming and implicit motor adaptation.

Sarah A Hutter1,2, Jordan A Taylor1,2.   

Abstract

It has become increasingly clear that learning in visuomotor rotation tasks, which induce an angular mismatch between movements of the hand and visual feedback, largely results from the combined effort of two distinct processes: implicit motor adaptation and explicit reaiming. However, it remains unclear how these two processes work together to produce trial-by-trial learning. Previous work has found that implicit motor adaptation operates automatically, regardless of task relevance, and saturates for large errors. In contrast, little is known about the automaticity of explicit reaiming and its sensitivity to error magnitude. Here we sought to characterize the automaticity and sensitivity function of these two processes to determine how they work together to facilitate performance in a visuomotor rotation task. We found that implicit adaptation scales relative to the visual error but only for small perturbations-replicating prior work. In contrast, explicit reaiming scales linearly for all tested perturbation sizes. Furthermore, the consistency of the perturbation appears to diminish both implicit adaptation and explicit reaiming, but to different degrees. Whereas implicit adaptation always displayed a response to the error, explicit reaiming was only engaged when errors displayed a minimal degree of consistency. This comports with the idea that implicit adaptation is obligatory and less flexible, whereas explicit reaiming is volitional and flexible. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This paper provides the first psychometric sensitivity function for explicit reaiming. Additionally, we show that the sensitivities of both implicit adaptation and explicit reaiming are influenced by consistency of errors. The pattern of results across two experiments further supports the idea that implicit adaptation is largely inflexible, whereas explicit reaiming is flexible and can be suppressed when unnecessary.

Entities:  

Keywords:  explicit reaiming; implicit adaptation; motor adaptation; motor control; motor learning

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30207865      PMCID: PMC6295523          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00283.2018

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


  37 in total

1.  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

2.  Constraints on visuo-motor adaptation depend on the type of visual feedback during practice.

Authors:  Herbert Heuer; Mathias Hegele
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Decomposition of a sensory prediction error signal for visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Peter A Butcher; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Environmental consistency determines the rate of motor adaptation.

Authors:  Luis Nicolas Gonzalez Castro; Alkis M Hadjiosif; Matthew A Hemphill; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Contribution of explicit processes to reinforcement-based motor learning.

Authors:  Peter Holland; Olivier Codol; Joseph M Galea
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Delayed feedback during sensorimotor learning selectively disrupts adaptation but not strategy use.

Authors:  Samuel N Brudner; Nikhit Kethidi; Damaris Graeupner; Richard B Ivry; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation?

Authors:  Kunlin Wei; Konrad Körding
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Trial-by-trial transformation of error into sensorimotor adaptation changes with environmental dynamics.

Authors:  Michael S Fine; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-07-05       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Visuomotor learning is dependent on direction-specific error saliency.

Authors:  Wanying Jiang; Xianzhi Yuan; Cong Yin; Kunlin Wei
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Structural Learning in a Visuomotor Adaptation Task Is Explicitly Accessible.

Authors:  Krista M Bond; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2017-08-28
View more
  6 in total

1.  The influence of task outcome on implicit motor learning.

Authors:  Hyosub E Kim; Darius E Parvin; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Implicit adaptation to mirror reversal is in the correct coordinate system but the wrong direction.

Authors:  Tianhe Wang; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Motor learning without movement.

Authors:  Olivia A Kim; Alexander D Forrence; Samuel D McDougle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 12.779

4.  Long-Term Motor Learning in the "Wild" With High Volume Video Game Data.

Authors:  Jennifer B Listman; Jonathan S Tsay; Hyosub E Kim; Wayne E Mackey; David J Heeger
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  Understanding implicit sensorimotor adaptation as a process of proprioceptive re-alignment.

Authors:  Jonathan S Tsay; Hyosub Kim; Adrian M Haith; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 8.713

6.  Principles of operation of a cerebellar learning circuit.

Authors:  David J Herzfeld; Nathan J Hall; Marios Tringides; Stephen G Lisberger
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 8.140

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.