Environmental Consistency Modulation of Error Sensitivity During Motor Adaptation is Explicitly Controlled

Motor adaptation, the adjustment of sensorimotor representations in face of changes in the environment, may operate at different rates. When human participants encounter repeated or consistent perturbations, their corrections for the experienced errors are larger compared to when the perturbations are new or inconsistent. Such modulations of error sensitivity were traditionally considered to be an implicit process that does not require attentional resources. In recent years, the implicit view of motor adaptation is challenged by evidence showing a contribution of explicit strategies to learning. These findings raise a fundamental question regarding the nature of the error sensitivity modulation processes. We tested the effect of explicit control on error sensitivity in a series of experiments, in which participants controlled a screen cursor to virtual targets. We manipulated environmental consistency by presenting rotations in random (low consistency) or random walk (high consistency) sequences, and illustrated that perturbation consistency affects the rate of adaptation, corroborating previous studies. When participants were instructed to ignore the cursor and move directly to the target, thus, eliminating the contribution of explicit strategies, consistency-driven error sensitivity modulation was abolished. In addition, delaying the visual feedback, a manipulation that affects implicit learning, did not influence error sensitivity under consistent perturbations. These results suggest that increases of learning rate in consistent environments are attributable to an explicit rather than implicit process in sensorimotor adaptation. Significant Statement When experiencing an error in a motor task (e.g., missing a basketball shot in a windy day), the motor system modifies its next action based on environmental consistency (how frequent the changes in wind’s direction and strength are). It is unknown whether this process is driven by an implicit and automatic process, or by an explicit process that employs cognitive strategies. We examined these possibilities in a simple visuomotor task by perturbing the feedback in each trial with different consistency levels, and manipulating the use of implicit and explicit processes. We found that participants increase their sensitivity to errors in consistent environments when employing explicit strategies, and do not change their behavior when the implicit process is operating alone.

[1]  A. Karniel,et al.  Target size matters: target errors contribute to the generalization of implicit visuomotor learning. , 2016, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[3]  G. Hammond,et al.  Impaired savings despite intact initial learning of motor adaptation in Parkinson’s disease , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  J. O. de Xivry,et al.  Internal model recalibration does not deteriorate with age while motor adaptation does , 2018, bioRxiv.

[5]  John W. Krakauer,et al.  Motor Learning: The Great Rate Debate , 2014, Current Biology.

[6]  A. Haith,et al.  Movement Repetition Facilitates Response Preparation. , 2018, Cell reports.

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

[8]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Modulation of error-sensitivity during a prism adaptation task in people with cerebellar degeneration. , 2015, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  Sarah A Hutter,et al.  Relative sensitivity of explicit re-aiming and implicit motor adaptation , 2018, bioRxiv.

[10]  J J Bloomberg,et al.  Neural correlates of multi-day learning and savings in sensorimotor adaptation , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Matthew J. Crossley,et al.  Savings upon Re-Aiming in Visuomotor Adaptation , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  David M. Huberdeau,et al.  The Influence of Movement Preparation Time on the Expression of Visuomotor Learning and Savings , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  John W. Krakauer,et al.  Practice induces a qualitative change in the memory representation for visuomotor learning , 2017 .

[14]  Hiroshi Imamizu,et al.  Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool , 2000, Nature.

[15]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Explicit and Implicit Contributions to Learning in a Sensorimotor Adaptation Task , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  P. Haggard,et al.  Action and awareness in pointing tasks , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Motor learning decline with age is related to differences in the explicit memory system , 2018, bioRxiv.

[20]  Richard B. Ivry,et al.  Characteristics of Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation Revealed by Task-irrelevant Clamped Feedback , 2017, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[21]  Jordan A Taylor,et al.  Dissociable cognitive strategies for sensorimotor learning , 2019, Nature Communications.

[22]  R. Ivry,et al.  Delayed feedback during sensorimotor learning selectively disrupts adaptation but not strategy use. , 2016, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Neuronal Correlates of Motor Performance and Motor Learning in the Primary Motor Cortex of Monkeys Adapting to an External Force Field , 2001, Neuron.

[24]  J. Krakauer,et al.  An Implicit Plan Overrides an Explicit Strategy during Visuomotor Adaptation , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  A memory of errors in sensorimotor learning , 2014, Science.

[26]  John E. Schlerf,et al.  Encoding of Sensory Prediction Errors in the Human Cerebellum , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  Reza Moazzezi,et al.  Invariant errors reveal limitations in motor correction rather than constraints on error sensitivity , 2017, Communications Biology.

[28]  H. Imamizu,et al.  Neural Substrates Related to Motor Memory with Multiple Timescales in Sensorimotor Adaptation , 2015, PLoS biology.

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

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

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

[32]  Valeria Della-Maggiore,et al.  One Week of Motor Adaptation Induces Structural Changes in Primary Motor Cortex That Predict Long-Term Memory One Year Later , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  P. Celnik,et al.  Dissociating the roles of the cerebellum and motor cortex during adaptive learning: the motor cortex retains what the cerebellum learns. , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[34]  A. Haith,et al.  Model-based and model-free mechanisms of human motor learning. , 2013, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[35]  David M. Huberdeau,et al.  Formation of a long-term memory for visuomotor adaptation following only a few trials of practice. , 2015, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  J. Krakauer,et al.  How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[37]  Richard B. Ivry,et al.  Taking Aim at the Cognitive Side of Learning in Sensorimotor Adaptation Tasks , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  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.

[39]  R. Ivry,et al.  An Explicit Strategy Prevails When the Cerebellum Fails to Compute Movement Errors , 2010, The Cerebellum.

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

[41]  Darius E. Parvin,et al.  Credit Assignment in a Motor Decision Making Task Is Influenced by Agency and Not Sensory Prediction Errors , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  Stephan Riek,et al.  Savings for visuomotor adaptation require prior history of error, not prior repetition of successful actions. , 2016, Journal of neurophysiology.

[43]  Krista M Bond,et al.  Flexible explicit but rigid implicit learning in a visuomotor adaptation task. , 2015, Journal of neurophysiology.

[44]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Representing delayed force feedback as a combination of current and delayed states. , 2017, Journal of neurophysiology.

[45]  Robert B. Welch,et al.  Adaptation to prism-displaced vision: The importance of target-pointing , 1969 .

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

[47]  Peter W. McOwan,et al.  Motion integration fields are dynamically elongated in the direction of motion , 2010 .

[48]  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.

[49]  M. Ernst,et al.  The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[50]  Raymond J. Delnicki,et al.  Overcoming Motor “Forgetting” Through Reinforcement Of Learned Actions , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.