IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005044.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neuromotor Noise Is Malleable by Amplifying Perceived Errors

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J Hasson
  • Zhaoran Zhang
  • Masaki O Abe
  • Dagmar Sternad

Abstract

Variability in motor performance results from the interplay of error correction and neuromotor noise. This study examined whether visual amplification of error, previously shown to improve performance, affects not only error correction, but also neuromotor noise, typically regarded as inaccessible to intervention. Seven groups of healthy individuals, with six participants in each group, practiced a virtual throwing task for three days until reaching a performance plateau. Over three more days of practice, six of the groups received different magnitudes of visual error amplification; three of these groups also had noise added. An additional control group was not subjected to any manipulations for all six practice days. The results showed that the control group did not improve further after the first three practice days, but the error amplification groups continued to decrease their error under the manipulations. Analysis of the temporal structure of participants’ corrective actions based on stochastic learning models revealed that these performance gains were attained by reducing neuromotor noise and, to a considerably lesser degree, by increasing the size of corrective actions. Based on these results, error amplification presents a promising intervention to improve motor function by decreasing neuromotor noise after performance has reached an asymptote. These results are relevant for patients with neurological disorders and the elderly. More fundamentally, these results suggest that neuromotor noise may be accessible to practice interventions.Author Summary: It is widely recognized that neuromotor noise limits human motor performance, generating errors and variability even in highly skilled performers. Arising from many spatiotemporal scales within the physiological system, the intrinsic noise component is commonly assumed to be invariant by most computational models of human neuromotor control. We challenge this assumption and show that after an individual has reached a performance plateau, amplifying perceived errors elicits continued reductions in observed variability. Model-based analyses show that the main driver of this effect is a reduction in the variance of neuromotor noise. Thus, error amplification has the potential to become a key intervention for individuals with increased movement variability due to high levels of neuromotor noise, ranging from children with dystonia, through patients with stroke, to healthy elders.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J Hasson & Zhaoran Zhang & Masaki O Abe & Dagmar Sternad, 2016. "Neuromotor Noise Is Malleable by Amplifying Perceived Errors," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005044
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005044
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005044&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005044?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. Jérémy Bluteau & Sabine Coquillart & Yohan Payan & Edouard Gentaz, 2008. "Haptic Guidance Improves the Visuo-Manual Tracking of Trajectories," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(3), pages 1-7, March.
    2. Jooeun Ahn & Zhaoran Zhang & Dagmar Sternad, 2016. "Noise Induces Biased Estimation of the Correction Gain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Dagmar Sternad & Masaki O Abe & Xiaogang Hu & Hermann Müller, 2011. "Neuromotor Noise, Error Tolerance and Velocity-Dependent Costs in Skilled Performance," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Christopher M. Harris & Daniel M. Wolpert, 1998. "Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6695), pages 780-784, August.
    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. Jack Brookes & Faisal Mushtaq & Earle Jamieson & Aaron J Fath & Geoffrey Bingham & Peter Culmer & Richard M Wilkie & Mark Mon-Williams, 2020. "Exploring disturbance as a force for good in motor learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Wolfgang I. Schöllhorn & Nikolas Rizzi & Agnė Slapšinskaitė-Dackevičienė & Nuno Leite, 2022. "Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-36, January.

    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. Paolo Tommasino & Antonella Maselli & Domenico Campolo & Francesco Lacquaniti & Andrea d’Avella, 2021. "A Hessian-based decomposition characterizes how performance in complex motor skills depends on individual strategy and variability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-32, June.
    2. Shogo Yonekura & Yasuo Kuniyoshi, 2017. "Bodily motion fluctuation improves reaching success rate in a neurophysical agent via geometric-stochastic resonance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    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. Max Berniker & Megan K O’Brien & Konrad P Kording & Alaa A Ahmed, 2013. "An Examination of the Generalizability of Motor Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    5. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Yanhao Ren & Qiang Luo & Wenlian Lu, 2023. "Synchronization Analysis of Linearly Coupled Systems with Signal-Dependent Noises," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Ashesh Vasalya & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Abderrahmane Kheddar, 2018. "More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Josh Merel & Donald M Pianto & John P Cunningham & Liam Paninski, 2015. "Encoder-Decoder Optimization for Brain-Computer Interfaces," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    10. Nidhi Seethapathi & Barrett C. Clark & Manoj Srinivasan, 2024. "Exploration-based learning of a stabilizing controller predicts locomotor adaptation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Maxime Teremetz & Isabelle Amado & Narjes Bendjemaa & Marie-Odile Krebs & Pavel G Lindberg & Marc A Maier, 2014. "Deficient Grip Force Control in Schizophrenia: Behavioral and Modeling Evidence for Altered Motor Inhibition and Motor Noise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    12. Frederic Danion & Raoul M Bongers & Reinoud J Bootsma, 2014. "The Trade-Off between Spatial and Temporal Variabilities in Reciprocal Upper-Limb Aiming Movements of Different Durations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-10, May.
    13. Wei Zhang & Sasha Reschechtko & Barry Hahn & Cynthia Benson & Elias Youssef, 2019. "Force-stabilizing synergies can be retained by coordinating sensory-blocked and sensory-intact digits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Julian J Tramper & Bart van den Broek & Wim Wiegerinck & Hilbert J Kappen & Stan Gielen, 2012. "Time-Integrated Position Error Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior in Time-Constrained Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-10, March.
    15. Konrad P Körding & Izumi Fukunaga & Ian S Howard & James N Ingram & Daniel M Wolpert, 2004. "A Neuroeconomics Approach to Inferring Utility Functions in Sensorimotor Control," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(10), pages 1-1, September.
    16. Pierre Morel & Philipp Ulbrich & Alexander Gail, 2017. "What makes a reach movement effortful? Physical effort discounting supports common minimization principles in decision making and motor control," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.
    17. Matthew A Slayton & Juan L Romero-Sosa & Katrina Shore & Dean V Buonomano & Indre V Viskontas, 2020. "Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, January.
    18. Christopher K Rhea & Tobin A Silver & S Lee Hong & Joong Hyun Ryu & Breanna E Studenka & Charmayne M L Hughes & Jeffrey M Haddad, 2011. "Noise and Complexity in Human Postural Control: Interpreting the Different Estimations of Entropy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Bastien Berret & Frédéric Jean, 2020. "Stochastic optimal open-loop control as a theory of force and impedance planning via muscle co-contraction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.

    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:pcbi00:1005044. 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.