Literature DB >> 31582527

Minimizing Precision-Weighted Sensory Prediction Errors via Memory Formation and Switching in Motor Adaptation.

Youngmin Oh1, Nicolas Schweighofer2.   

Abstract

Humans predict the sensory consequences of motor commands by learning internal models of the body and of environment perturbations. When facing a sensory prediction error, should we attribute this error to a change in our body, and update the body internal model, or to a change in the environment? In the latter case, should we update an existing perturbation model or create a new model? Here, we propose that a decision-making process compares the models' prediction errors, weighted by their precisions, to select and update either the body model or an existing perturbation model. When no model can predict a perturbation, a new perturbation model is created and selected. When a model is selected, both the prediction's mean estimate and uncertainty are updated to minimize future prediction errors and to increase the precision of the predictions. Results from computer simulations, which we verified in an arm visuomotor adaptation experiment with subjects of both sexes, account for short aftereffects and large savings after adaptation to large, but not small, perturbations. Results also clarify previous data in the absence of errors (error-clamp): motor memories show an initial lack of decay after a large perturbation, but gradual decay after a small perturbation. Finally, qualitative individual differences in adaptation were explained by subjects selecting and updating either the body model or a perturbation model. Our results suggest that motor adaptation belongs to a general class of learning according to which memories are created when no existing memories can predict sensory data accurately and precisely.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT When movements are followed by unexpected outcomes, such as following the introduction of a visuomotor or a force field perturbation, or the sudden removal of such perturbations, it is unclear whether the CNS updates existing memories or creates new memories. Here, we propose a novel model of adaptation, and investigate, via computer simulations and behavioral experiments, how the amplitude and schedule of the perturbation, as well as the characteristics of the learner, lead to the selection and update of existing memories or the creation of new memories. Our results provide insights into a number of puzzling and contradictory motor adaptation data, as well as into qualitative individual differences in adaptation.
Copyright © 2019 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cerebellum; individual differences; memory creation; motor adaptation; motor memories; prediction errors

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31582527      PMCID: PMC6855676          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3250-18.2019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  63 in total

1.  The influence of movement preparation time on the expression of visuomotor learning and savings.

Authors:  Adrian M Haith; David M Huberdeau; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Feedback delay attenuates implicit but facilitates explicit adjustments to a visuomotor rotation.

Authors:  Raphael Schween; Mathias Hegele
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.877

3.  Motor Error in Parietal Area 5 and Target Error in Area 7 Drive Distinctive Adaptation in Reaching.

Authors:  Masato Inoue; Shigeru Kitazawa
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Motor Learning: A Cortical System for Adaptive Motor Control.

Authors:  Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Relation between reaction time and reach errors during visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Juan Fernandez-Ruiz; William Wong; Irene T Armstrong; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2010-12-05       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Learning and recall of incremental kinematic and dynamic sensorimotor transformations.

Authors:  Jessica Klassen; Christine Tong; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-06-10       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The Decay of Motor Memories Is Independent of Context Change Detection.

Authors:  Andrew E Brennan; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Sensory prediction errors, not performance errors, update memories in visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Kangwoo Lee; Youngmin Oh; Jun Izawa; Nicolas Schweighofer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Individual Differences in Motor Noise and Adaptation Rate Are Optimally Related.

Authors:  Rick van der Vliet; Maarten A Frens; Linda de Vreede; Zeb D Jonker; Gerard M Ribbers; Ruud W Selles; Jos N van der Geest; Opher Donchin
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2018-07-31

10.  Dissociating motor learning from recovery in exoskeleton training post-stroke.

Authors:  Nicolas Schweighofer; Chunji Wang; Denis Mottet; Isabelle Laffont; Karima Bakhti; David J Reinkensmeyer; Olivier Rémy-Néris
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 4.262

View more
  7 in total

1.  Hypothalamic Control of Forelimb Motor Adaptation.

Authors:  Dane Donegan; Christoph M Kanzler; Julia Büscher; Paulius Viskaitis; Ed F Bracey; Olivier Lambercy; Denis Burdakov
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 6.709

2.  Reexposure to a sensorimotor perturbation produces opposite effects on explicit and implicit learning processes.

Authors:  Guy Avraham; J Ryan Morehead; Hyosub E Kim; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 8.029

3.  Experience of After-Effect of Memory Update Reduces Sensitivity to Errors During Sensory-Motor Adaptation Task.

Authors:  Kenya Tanamachi; Jun Izawa; Satoshi Yamamoto; Daisuke Ishii; Arito Yozu; Yutaka Kohno
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Individual Differences in Sensorimotor Adaptation Are Conserved Over Time and Across Force-Field Tasks.

Authors:  Robert T Moore; Tyler Cluff
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  The decay and consolidation of effector-independent motor memories.

Authors:  Shancheng Bao; Jinsung Wang; David L Wright; John J Buchanan; Yuming Lei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  The Effects of Sensory Threshold Somatosensory Electrical Stimulation on Users With Different MI-BCI Performance.

Authors:  Long Chen; Lei Zhang; Zhongpeng Wang; Bin Gu; Xin Zhang; Dong Ming
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 5.152

7.  Continuous Head Motion is a Greater Motor Control Challenge than Transient Head Motion in Patients with Loss of Vestibular Function.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Omid A Zobeiri; Jennifer L Millar; Wagner Souza Silva; Michael C Schubert; Kathleen E Cullen
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2021-08-08       Impact factor: 3.919

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.