How is somatosensory information used to adapt to changes in the mechanical environment?

Recent studies examining adaptation to unexpected changes in the mechanical environment highlight the use of position error in the adaptation process. However, force information is also available. In this chapter, we examine adaptation processes in three separate studies where the mechanical environment was changed intermittently. We compare the expected consequences of using position error and force information in the changes to motor commands following a change in the mechanical environment. In general, our results support the use of position error over force information and are consistent with current computational models of motor learning. However, in situations where the change in the mechanical environment eliminates position error the central nervous system does not necessarily respond as would be predicted by these models. We suggest that it is necessary to take into account the statistics of prior experience to account for our observations. Another deficiency in these models is the absence of a mechanism for modulating limb mechanical impedance during adaptation. We propose a relatively simple computational model based on reflex responses to perturbations which is capable of accounting for iterative changes in temporal patterns of muscle co-activation.

[1]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Generalization of Motor Learning Depends on the History of Prior Action , 2006, PLoS biology.

[2]  Bernard Ng,et al.  Learning feedforward commands to muscles using time-shifted sensory feedback , 2006 .

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

[4]  Daniel M Wolpert,et al.  Bayesian integration in force estimation. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  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.

[6]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[7]  D. Marr A theory of cerebellar cortex , 1969, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  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.

[10]  Mark R Hinder,et al.  Position information but not force information is used in adapting to changes in environmental dynamics. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

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

[13]  M. Hinder,et al.  Novel strategies in feedforward adaptation to a position-dependent perturbation , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Internal models in the cerebellum , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Making smooth moves , 2022 .

[16]  J. Albus A Theory of Cerebellar Function , 1971 .

[17]  James V. Stone,et al.  Recurrent cerebellar architecture solves the motor-error problem , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.