IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0066013.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trial-to-Trial Reoptimization of Motor Behavior Due to Changes in Task Demands Is Limited

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry

Abstract

Each task requires a specific motor behavior that is tuned to task demands. For instance, writing requires a lot of accuracy while clapping does not. It is known that the brain adjusts the motor behavior to different task demands as predicted by optimal control theory. In this study, the mechanism of this reoptimization process is investigated by varying the accuracy demands of a reaching task. In this task, the width of the reaching target (0.5 or 8 cm) was varied either on a trial-to-trial basis (random schedule) or in blocks (blocked schedule). On some trials, the hand of the subjects was clamped to a rectilinear trajectory that ended 2 cm on the left or right of the target center. The rejection of this perturbation largely varied with target width in the blocked schedule but not in the random schedule. That is, subjects exhibited different motor behavior in the different schedules despite identical accuracy demands. Therefore, while reoptimization has been considered immediate and automatic, the differences in motor behavior observed across schedules suggest that the reoptimization of the motor behavior is neither happening on a trial-by-trial basis nor obligatory. The absence of trial-to-trial mechanisms, the inability of the brain to adapt to two conflicting task demands and the existence of a switching cost are discussed as possible sources of the non-optimality of motor behavior during the random schedule.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, 2013. "Trial-to-Trial Reoptimization of Motor Behavior Due to Changes in Task Demands Is Limited," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066013
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066013
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066013&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0066013?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. Todd E Hudson & Hadley Tassinari & Michael S Landy, 2010. "Compensation for Changing Motor Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-14, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Todd E Hudson & Uta Wolfe & Laurence T Maloney, 2012. "Speeded Reaching Movements around Invisible Obstacles," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    2. Hang Zhang & Nathaniel D Daw & Laurence T Maloney, 2013. "Testing Whether Humans Have an Accurate Model of Their Own Motor Uncertainty in a Speeded Reaching Task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.

    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:pone00:0066013. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.