IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Binding of Learning to Action in Motor Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Nicolas Gonzalez Castro
  • Craig Bryant Monsen
  • Maurice A Smith

Abstract

In motor tasks, errors between planned and actual movements generally result in adaptive changes which reduce the occurrence of similar errors in the future. It has commonly been assumed that the motor adaptation arising from an error occurring on a particular movement is specifically associated with the motion that was planned. Here we show that this is not the case. Instead, we demonstrate the binding of the adaptation arising from an error on a particular trial to the motion experienced on that same trial. The formation of this association means that future movements planned to resemble the motion experienced on a given trial benefit maximally from the adaptation arising from it. This reflects the idea that actual rather than planned motions are assigned ‘credit’ for motor errors because, in a computational sense, the maximal adaptive response would be associated with the condition credited with the error. We studied this process by examining the patterns of generalization associated with motor adaptation to novel dynamic environments during reaching arm movements in humans. We found that these patterns consistently matched those predicted by adaptation associated with the actual rather than the planned motion, with maximal generalization observed where actual motions were clustered. We followed up these findings by showing that a novel training procedure designed to leverage this newfound understanding of the binding of learning to action, can improve adaptation rates by greater than 50%. Our results provide a mechanistic framework for understanding the effects of partial assistance and error augmentation during neurologic rehabilitation, and they suggest ways to optimize their use. Author Summary: Einstein once said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. However, task repetition is generally the default procedure for training a motor skill. This can work because motor learning ensures that repetition of the same motor task will lead to actions that are different, as errors are reduced and motor skill improves. However, here we show that task repetition, although not “insane”, is inefficient. The machine learning algorithms used to control motion in robotics adapt the movement that was actually made rather than the planned movement in order to assure stable learning. In contrast, it had been widely assumed that neural motor systems adapt based on the planned rather than the actual movement. If this were the case, task repetition would be an efficient training procedure. Here we studied the mechanisms for motor adaptation in humans and found that, like in robotic learning, the adaptation that we experience is associated with the actual movement. This finding led to the design of an improved training procedure that avoids task repetition. Instead, this procedure continually adjusts the movement goal in order to drive participants to experience the correct movement, even if initially by accident, leading to an over 50% improvement in the motor adaptation rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Nicolas Gonzalez Castro & Craig Bryant Monsen & Maurice A Smith, 2011. "The Binding of Learning to Action in Motor Adaptation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002052
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002052
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002052&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002052?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroshi Imamizu & Satoru Miyauchi & Tomoe Tamada & Yuka Sasaki & Ryousuke Takino & Benno Pütz & Toshinori Yoshioka & Mitsuo Kawato, 2000. "Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6766), pages 192-195, January.
    2. Kurt A. Thoroughman & Reza Shadmehr, 2000. "Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives," Nature, Nature, vol. 407(6805), pages 742-747, October.
    3. Konrad P. Körding & Daniel M. Wolpert, 2004. "Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6971), pages 244-247, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew E Brennan & Maurice A Smith, 2015. "The Decay of Motor Memories Is Independent of Context Change Detection," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-31, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Blustein & Ahmed Shehata & Kevin Englehart & Jonathon Sensinger, 2018. "Conventional analysis of trial-by-trial adaptation is biased: Empirical and theoretical support using a Bayesian estimator," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Frédéric Crevecoeur & Stephen H Scott, 2013. "Priors Engaged in Long-Latency Responses to Mechanical Perturbations Suggest a Rapid Update in State Estimation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    8. Vassilios N Christopoulos & Paul R Schrater, 2009. "Grasping Objects with Environmentally Induced Position Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-11, October.
    9. Guido Marco Cicchini & Giovanni D’Errico & David Charles Burr, 2022. "Crowding results from optimal integration of visual targets with contextual information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Alice Soldà & Changxia Ke & Lionel Page & William von Hippel, 2020. "Strategically delusional," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 604-631, September.
    11. Daniel Bjasch & Christopher J Bockisch & Dominik Straumann & Alexander A Tarnutzer, 2012. "Differential Effects of Visual Feedback on Subjective Visual Vertical Accuracy and Precision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-11, November.
    12. Philipp Schustek & Rubén Moreno-Bote, 2018. "Instance-based generalization for human judgments about uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, June.
    13. Barbara Feulner & Matthew G. Perich & Raeed H. Chowdhury & Lee E. Miller & Juan A. Gallego & Claudia Clopath, 2022. "Small, correlated changes in synaptic connectivity may facilitate rapid motor learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Daniel Durstewitz, 2017. "A state space approach for piecewise-linear recurrent neural networks for identifying computational dynamics from neural measurements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-33, June.
    15. Joshua G A Cashaback & Christopher K Lao & Dimitrios J Palidis & Susan K Coltman & Heather R McGregor & Paul L Gribble, 2019. "The gradient of the reinforcement landscape influences sensorimotor learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-27, March.
    16. Yael Mandelblat-Cerf & Itai Novick & Eilon Vaadia, 2011. "Expressions of Multiple Neuronal Dynamics during Sensorimotor Learning in the Motor Cortex of Behaving Monkeys," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Michael Bergin & Kylie Tucker & Bill Vicenzino & Paul W Hodges, 2021. "“Taking action” to reduce pain—Has interpretation of the motor adaptation to pain been too simplistic?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Nils Neupärtl & Fabian Tatai & Constantin A Rothkopf, 2020. "Intuitive physical reasoning about objects’ masses transfers to a visuomotor decision task consistent with Newtonian physics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Joshua G A Cashaback & Heather R McGregor & Ayman Mohatarem & Paul L Gribble, 2017. "Dissociating error-based and reinforcement-based loss functions during sensorimotor learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-28, July.
    20. Salvador Dura-Bernal & Thomas Wennekers & Susan L Denham, 2012. "Top-Down Feedback in an HMAX-Like Cortical Model of Object Perception Based on Hierarchical Bayesian Networks and Belief Propagation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-25, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.