Learning motor synergies makes use of information on muscular load.

Prism adaptation, a form of procedural learning, requires the integration of visual and motor information for its proper acquisition. Although the role of the visual feedback has begun to be understood, the nature of the motor information necessary for the development of the adaptation remains unknown. In this work we have tested the idea that modifying the arm load at different stages of the adaptation process, and the ensuing change of motor information perceived by the subjects, would modify the final properties of the adaptation. We trained a set of subjects to throw balls to a target while wearing prism glasses and varied the weight of their arms at different time points during the task. We observed that the acquisition of the adaptation was not affected by the change in load. However, its persistence (i.e., the aftereffect) was reduced when tested under a weight condition different from the training trials. Furthermore, when the training weight conditions were restored later during testing, a second, late aftereffect was unmasked, suggesting that the missing aftereffect did not disappear but had remained latent. Our results show that the internal representation of a motor memory incorporates information about load conditions and that the memory stored under a specific weight condition can be fully retrieved only when the original training condition is restored.

[1]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  The handbook of brain theory and neural networks , 1995, A Bradford book.

[2]  R B Welch,et al.  Research on Adaptation to Rearranged Vision: 1966–1974 , 1974, Perception.

[3]  J Houk,et al.  Feedback control of skeletal muscles. , 1967, Brain research.

[4]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Prism Adaptation of Reaching Movements: Specificity for the Velocity of Reaching , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[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]  H B Cohen Some critical factors in prism-adaptation. , 1966, The American journal of psychology.

[7]  R Held,et al.  Adaptation to displaced vision: a change in the central control of sensorimotor coordination. , 1971, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[8]  A. Kornheiser Adaptation to laterally displaced vision: a review. , 1976, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  J. Fernández-Ruiz,et al.  Prism adaptation and aftereffect: specifying the properties of a procedural memory system. , 1999, Learning & memory.

[10]  C. S. Harris Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. , 1965, Psychological review.

[11]  R. Sperry Neural basis of the spontaneous optokinetic response produced by visual inversion. , 1950, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[12]  M. Jeannerod Corollary discharge in visuomotor coordination , 1998 .

[13]  W. T. Thach,et al.  Throwing while looking through prisms. II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[14]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Effects of delayed visual information on the rate and amount of prism adaptation in the human , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[15]  R. Held,et al.  Adaptation to displaced and delayed visual feedback from the hand. , 1966 .

[16]  S. P. Evseev,et al.  The Control of Movement , 1996 .

[17]  John W. Krakauer,et al.  Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  R B Welch,et al.  Evidence for a three-component model of prism adaptation. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  E Bizzi,et al.  Motor learning by field approximation. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.