Does the motor control system use multiple models and context switching to cope with a variable environment?

Studies of arm movements have shown that subjects learn to compensate predictable mechanical perturbations by developing a representation of the relation between the state of motion of the arm and the perturbing forces. Here, we tested the hypothesis that subjects construct internal representations of two different force fields and switch between them when presented with an alternating sequence of these fields. Our results do not support this hypothesis. Subjects performed reaching movements in four sessions over 4 days. On the 1st day the robotic manipulandum perturbed the movement by perpendicular force that alternated its direction after each movement. Subjects were unable to construct the two underlying models and switch between them. On the 2nd day only one field was applied and well learned. On the 3rd day only the other field was applied and well learned. Then the experiment of the 1st day was repeated on the 4th day. Even after this extensive training subjects showed no signs of improved performance with alternating fields. This result combined with previous studies suggests that the central nervous system has a strong tendency to employ a single internal model when dealing with a sequence of perturbations.

[1]  R A Scheidt,et al.  Learning to move amid uncertainty. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  J. Lackner,et al.  Gravitoinertial force background level affects adaptation to coriolis force perturbations of reaching movements. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Adaptation to switching force fields , 2001 .

[4]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Sequence, time, or state representation: how does the motor control system adapt to variable environments? , 2003, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control , 1998, Neural Networks.

[7]  J R Flanagan,et al.  Composition and Decomposition of Internal Models in Motor Learning under Altered Kinematic and Dynamic Environments , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  R A Scheidt,et al.  Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  R L Sainburg,et al.  Intersegmental dynamics are controlled by sequential anticipatory, error correction, and postural mechanisms. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  P. Morasso Spatial control of arm movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives , 2000, Nature.

[12]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Context estimation for sensorimotor control. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Consolidation in human motor memory , 1996, Nature.

[14]  T. Brashers-Krug,et al.  Functional Stages in the Formation of Human Long-Term Motor Memory , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Central representation of time during motor learning. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Ron Meir,et al.  Polyhedral mixture of linear experts for many-to-one mapping inversion , 2001, ESANN.

[17]  T. Flash,et al.  Models of Motor Adaptation and Impedance Control in Human Arm Movements , 1997 .