Generalization and Multirate Models of Motor Adaptation

Abstract When subjects adapt their reaching movements in the setting of a systematic force or visual perturbation, generalization of adaptation can be assessed psychophysically in two ways: by testing untrained locations in the work space at the end of adaptation (slow postadaptation generalization) or by determining the influence of an error on the next trial during adaptation (fast trial-by-trial generalization). These two measures of generalization have been widely used in psychophysical studies, but the reason that they might differ has not been addressed explicitly. Our goal was to develop a computational framework for determining when a two-state model is justified by the data and to explore the implications of these two types of generalization for neural representations of movements. We first investigated, for single-target learning, how well standard statistical model selection procedures can discriminate two-process models from single-process models when learning and retention coefficients were systematically varied. We then built a two-state model for multitarget learning and showed that if an adaptation process is indeed two-rate, then the postadaptation generalization approach primarily probes the slow process, whereas the trial-by-trial generalization approach is most informative about the fast process. The fast process, due to its strong sensitivity to trial error, contributes predominantly to trial-by-trial generalization, whereas the strong retention of the slow system contributes predominantly to postadaptation generalization. Thus, when adaptation can be shown to be two-rate, the two measures of generalization may probe different brain representations of movement direction.

[1]  H. Akaike Fitting autoregressive models for prediction , 1969 .

[2]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[3]  R. Mehra,et al.  Computational aspects of maximum likelihood estimation and reduction in sensitivity function calculations , 1974 .

[4]  R. Shumway,et al.  AN APPROACH TO TIME SERIES SMOOTHING AND FORECASTING USING THE EM ALGORITHM , 1982 .

[5]  B. Efron,et al.  The Jackknife: The Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. , 1983 .

[6]  Graham C. Goodwin,et al.  Adaptive filtering prediction and control , 1984 .

[7]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing , 1987 .

[8]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User , 1987 .

[9]  B. Efron The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans , 1987 .

[10]  J. E. Glynn,et al.  Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[11]  M. Kawato,et al.  Internal representations of the motor apparatus: implications from generalization in visuomotor learning. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

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

[15]  C Ghez,et al.  Learning of Visuomotor Transformations for Vectorial Planning of Reaching Trajectories , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  T. Başar,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2001 .

[17]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Quantifying Generalization from Trial-by-Trial Behavior of Adaptive Systems that Learn with Basis Functions: Theory and Experiments in Human Motor Control , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  R C Miall,et al.  System Identification Applied to a Visuomotor Task: Near-Optimal Human Performance in a Noisy Changing Task , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  R. Shadmehr Generalization as a behavioral window to the neural mechanisms of learning internal models. , 2004, Human movement science.

[20]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Adaptation to Visuomotor Transformations: Consolidation, Interference, and Forgetting , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Robert H. Shumway,et al.  Time Series Analysis and Its Applications (Springer Texts in Statistics) , 2005 .

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Calibration of visually guided reaching is driven by error-corrective learning and internal dynamics. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[26]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  The dynamics of memory as a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  竹安 数博,et al.  Time series analysis and its applications , 2007 .

[28]  Joseph T. Francis Error generalization as a function of velocity and duration: human reaching movements , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  David J Ostry,et al.  Modifiability of generalization in dynamics learning. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing , 2007 .

[31]  Sarah E. Criscimagna-Hemminger,et al.  Consolidation Patterns of Human Motor Memory , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  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.

[33]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Spontaneous recovery of motor memory during saccade adaptation. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Explaining savings for visuomotor adaptation: linear time-invariant state-space models are not sufficient. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[35]  N. Schweighofer,et al.  Dual Adaptation Supports a Parallel Architecture of Motor Memory , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  John W Krakauer,et al.  Adaptation to visuomotor rotation through interaction between posterior parietal and motor cortical areas. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[37]  Sarah E. Criscimagna-Hemminger,et al.  Size of error affects cerebellar contributions to motor learning. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[38]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  A Shared Resource between Declarative Memory and Motor Memory , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  Gary C. Sing,et al.  Reduction in Learning Rates Associated with Anterograde Interference Results from Interactions between Different Timescales in Motor Adaptation , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  Vincent S. Huang,et al.  Rethinking Motor Learning and Savings in Adaptation Paradigms: Model-Free Memory for Successful Actions Combines with Internal Models , 2011, Neuron.

[41]  Richard B. Ivry,et al.  Flexible Cognitive Strategies during Motor Learning , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[42]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Context-Dependent Decay of Motor Memories during Skill Acquisition , 2013, Current Biology.