Literature DB >> 31604835

Domain-Specific Working Memory, But Not Dopamine-Related Genetic Variability, Shapes Reward-Based Motor Learning.

Peter Holland1, Olivier Codol2, Elizabeth Oxley2, Madison Taylor2, Elizabeth Hamshere2, Shadiq Joseph2, Laura Huffer2, Joseph M Galea2.   

Abstract

The addition of rewarding feedback to motor learning tasks has been shown to increase the retention of learning, spurring interest in its possible utility for rehabilitation. However, motor tasks using rewarding feedback have repeatedly been shown to lead to great interindividual variability in performance. Understanding the causes of such variability is vital for maximizing the potential benefits of reward-based motor learning. Thus, using a large human cohort of both sexes (n = 241), we examined whether spatial (SWM), verbal, and mental rotation (RWM) working memory capacity and dopamine-related genetic profiles were associated with performance in two reward-based motor tasks. The first task assessed the participant's ability to follow a slowly shifting reward region based on hit/miss (binary) feedback. The second task investigated the participant's capacity to preserve performance with binary feedback after adapting to the rotation with full visual feedback. Our results demonstrate that higher SWM is associated with greater success and an enhanced capacity to reproduce a successful motor action, measured as change in reach angle following reward. In contrast, higher RWM was predictive of an increased propensity to express an explicit strategy when required to make large reach angle adjustments. Therefore, SWM and RWM were reliable, but dissociable, predictors of success during reward-based motor learning. Change in reach direction following failure was also a strong predictor of success rate, although we observed no consistent relationship with working memory. Surprisingly, no dopamine-related genotypes predicted performance. Therefore, working memory capacity plays a pivotal role in determining individual ability in reward-based motor learning.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Reward-based motor learning tasks have repeatedly been shown to lead to idiosyncratic behaviors that cause varying degrees of task success. Yet, the factors determining an individual's capacity to use reward-based feedback are unclear. Here, we assessed a wide range of possible candidate predictors, and demonstrate that domain-specific working memory plays an essential role in determining individual capacity to use reward-based feedback. Surprisingly, genetic variations in dopamine availability were not found to play a role. This is in stark contrast with seminal work in the reinforcement and decision-making literature, which show strong and replicated effects of the same dopaminergic genes in decision-making. Therefore, our results provide novel insights into reward-based motor learning, highlighting a key role for domain-specific working memory capacity.
Copyright © 2019 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genetics; motor learning; reaching; reward; working memory

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31604835      PMCID: PMC6867814          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0583-19.2019

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


  59 in total

1.  Neural substrates of manipulation in visuospatial working memory.

Authors:  B Suchan; R Botko; E Gizewski; M Forsting; I Daum
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.590

2.  Pointing errors reflect biases in the perception of the initial hand position.

Authors:  P Vindras; M Desmurget; C Prablanc; P Viviani
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Michael J Frank
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  Dissociating mental transformations and visuo-spatial storage in working memory: evidence from representational neglect.

Authors:  R H Logie; S Della Sala; N Beschin; M Denis
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2005 Apr-May

5.  Learning to represent reward structure: a key to adapting to complex environments.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Nakahara; Okihide Hikosaka
Journal:  Neurosci Res       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 3.304

6.  Contributions of spatial working memory to visuomotor learning.

Authors:  Joaquin A Anguera; Patricia A Reuter-Lorenz; Daniel T Willingham; Rachael D Seidler
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Learning from sensory and reward prediction errors during motor adaptation.

Authors:  Jun Izawa; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Model-based choices involve prospective neural activity.

Authors:  Bradley B Doll; Katherine D Duncan; Dylan A Simon; Daphna Shohamy; Nathaniel D Daw
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 24.884

9.  Pharmacological Dopamine Manipulation Does Not Alter Reward-Based Improvements in Memory Retention during a Visuomotor Adaptation Task.

Authors:  Graziella Quattrocchi; Jessica Monaco; Andy Ho; Friederike Irmen; Wolfgang Strube; Diane Ruge; Sven Bestmann; Joseph M Galea
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2018-07-16

10.  Genetic variation in the human brain dopamine system influences motor learning and its modulation by L-Dopa.

Authors:  Kristin M Pearson-Fuhrhop; Brian Minton; Daniel Acevedo; Babak Shahbaba; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  Fluid Cognitive Abilities Are Important for Learning and Retention of a New, Explicitly Learned Walking Pattern in Individuals After Stroke.

Authors:  Margaret A French; Matthew L Cohen; Ryan T Pohlig; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 3.919

2.  Fluid Cognition Relates to Locomotor Switching in Neurotypical Adults, Not Individuals After Stroke.

Authors:  Margaret A French; Matthew L Cohen; Ryan T Pohlig; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 3.649

3.  Younger and Late Middle-Aged Adults Exhibit Different Patterns of Cognitive-Motor Interference During Locomotor Adaptation, With No Disruption of Savings.

Authors:  Cristina Rossi; Ryan T Roemmich; Nicolas Schweighofer; Amy J Bastian; Kristan A Leech
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 5.750

4.  Reward boosts reinforcement-based motor learning.

Authors:  Pierre Vassiliadis; Gerard Derosiere; Cecile Dubuc; Aegryan Lete; Frederic Crevecoeur; Friedhelm C Hummel; Julie Duque
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2021-07-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.