Temporal specificity of the initial adaptive response in motor adaptation

Repeated exposure to a novel physical environment eventually leads to a mature adaptive response whereby feedforward changes in motor output mirror both the amplitude and temporal structure of the environmental perturbations. However, adaptive responses at the earliest stages of learning have been found to be not only smaller, but systematically less specific in their temporal structure compared to later stages of learning. This observation has spawned a lively debate as to whether the temporal structure of the initial adaptive response is, in fact, stereotyped and non-specific. To settle this debate, we directly measured the adaptive responses to velocity-dependent and position-dependent force-field perturbations (vFFs and pFFs) at the earliest possible stage of motor learning in humans–after just a single-movement exposure. In line with previous work, we found these earliest stage adaptive responses to be more similar than the perturbations that induced them. However, the single-trial adaptive responses for vFF and pFF perturbations were clearly distinct, and the disparity between them reflected the difference between the temporal structure of the perturbations that drove them. Critically, we observed these differences between single-trial adaptive responses when vFF and pFF perturbations were randomly intermingled from one trial to the next within the same block, indicating perturbation response specificity at the single trial level. These findings demonstrate that the initial adaptive responses to physical perturbations are not stereotyped. Instead, the neural plasticity in sensorimotor areas is sensitive to the temporal structure of a movement perturbation even at the earliest stage in learning. This insight has direct implications for the development of computational models of early-stage motor adaptation and the evolution of this adaptive response with continued training.

[1]  L. Paninski,et al.  Spatiotemporal tuning of motor cortical neurons for hand position and velocity. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Trial-by-trial transformation of error into sensorimotor adaptation changes with environmental dynamics. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  P J Cordo,et al.  Kinesthetic control of a multijoint movement sequence. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  Wilsaan M. Joiner,et al.  Long-term retention explained by a model of short-term learning in the adaptive control of reaching. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Mollie K. Marko,et al.  Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  Maurice A. Smith,et al.  The Binding of Learning to Action in Motor Adaptation , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Motor disorder in Huntington's disease begins as a dysfunction in error feedback control , 2000, Nature.

[8]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Adaptation and generalization in acceleration-dependent force fields , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  E Bizzi,et al.  Motor learning through the combination of primitives. , 2000, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[11]  Gary C. Sing,et al.  Primitives for Motor Adaptation Reflect Correlated Neural Tuning to Position and Velocity , 2009, Neuron.

[12]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields , 1999, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  Mark J Wagner,et al.  Shared Internal Models for Feedforward and Feedback Control , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  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.

[15]  Gary C. Sing,et al.  Linear hypergeneralization of learned dynamics across movement speeds reveals anisotropic, gain-encoding primitives for motor adaptation. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  Maurice A. Smith,et al.  The Decay of Motor Memories Is Independent of Context Change Detection , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[18]  David W Franklin,et al.  Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans , 2005, The Journal of physiology.

[19]  M. Kawato,et al.  Inverse-dynamics model eye movement control by Purkinje cells in the cerebellum , 1993, Nature.

[20]  Sherwin S Chan,et al.  Motor cortical representation of position and velocity during reaching. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  A. Prochazka Chapter 11 Quantifying Proprioception , 1999 .

[22]  A. P. Georgopoulos,et al.  Movement parameters and neural activity in motor cortex and area 5. , 1994, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  A Gain-Field Encoding of Limb Position and Velocity in the Internal Model of Arm Dynamics , 2003, PLoS biology.

[24]  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.

[25]  P. Cordo Mechanisms controlling accurate changes in elbow torque in humans , 1987, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[26]  D. Nozaki,et al.  Simultaneous Processing of Information on Multiple Errors in Visuomotor Learning , 2013, PloS one.

[27]  B. Edin,et al.  Dynamic response of human muscle spindle afferents to stretch. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Motor adaptation to single force pulses: sensitive to direction but insensitive to within-movement pulse placement and magnitude. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  Gary C. Sing,et al.  Limb motion dictates how motor learning arises from arbitrary environmental dynamics. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  J F Kalaska,et al.  Integration of predictive feedforward and sensory feedback signals for online control of visually guided movement. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Wilsaan M Joiner,et al.  The training schedule affects the stability, not the magnitude, of the interlimb transfer of learned dynamics. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Structural learning in feedforward and feedback control. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[35]  Maurice A Smith,et al.  Flexible Control of Safety Margins for Action Based on Environmental Variability , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[37]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Dissociating Timing and Coordination as Functions of the Cerebellum , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  A. Prochazka Quantifying proprioception. , 1999, Progress in brain research.

[39]  Yohsuke R. Miyamoto,et al.  Temporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[40]  Kunlin Wei,et al.  The nervous system uses nonspecific motor learning in response to random perturbations of varying nature. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Interacting Adaptive Processes with Different Timescales Underlie Short-Term Motor Learning , 2006, PLoS biology.

[42]  Maurice A. Smith,et al.  Environmental Consistency Determines the Rate of Motor Adaptation , 2014, Current Biology.