Trial-by-trial transformation of error into sensorimotor adaptation changes with environmental dynamics.

Humans can rapidly change their motor output to make goal-directed reaching movements in a new environment. Theories that describe this adaptive process have long presumed that adaptive steps scale proportionally with error. Here we show that while performing a novel reaching task, participants did not adopt a fixed learning rule, but instead modified their adaptive response based on the statistical properties of the movement environment. We found that as the directional bias of the force distribution shifted from strongly biased to unbiased, participants transitioned from an adaptive process that scaled proportionally with error to one that adapted to the direction, but not magnitude, of error. Participants also modified their response as the likelihood of the perturbation changed; as the likelihood decreased from 80 to 20% of trials, participants adopted an increasingly disproportional strategy. We propose that people can rapidly switch between learning processes within minutes of experiencing a novel environment.

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

[2]  C. D. MARSDEN,et al.  Servo Action in Human Voluntary Movement , 1972, Nature.

[3]  Vijaykumar Gullapalli,et al.  A stochastic reinforcement learning algorithm for learning real-valued functions , 1990, Neural Networks.

[4]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Forward Models: Supervised Learning with a Distal Teacher , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[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]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

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

[8]  J. Gordon,et al.  Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  J. Gordon,et al.  Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. I. Spatial errors. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  E. Bizzi,et al.  The Cognitive Neurosciences , 1996 .

[11]  W. Kristan,et al.  Population coding and behavioral choice , 1997, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  M. Arbib,et al.  Role of the cerebellum in reaching movements in humans. I. Distributed inverse dynamics control , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[13]  Lina L. E. Massone.  Sensorimotor learning , 1998 .

[14]  Andrew G. Barto,et al.  Reinforcement learning in motor control , 1998 .

[15]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Cerebellum and motor control , 1998 .

[16]  M. Arbib,et al.  Role of the cerebellum in reaching movements in humans. II. A neural model of the intermediate cerebellum , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[17]  T. Ebner,et al.  Cerebellar Purkinje Cell Simple Spike Discharge Encodes Movement Velocity in Primates during Visuomotor Arm Tracking , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  A B Schwartz,et al.  Motor cortical representation of speed and direction during reaching. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[20]  Alexandre Pouget,et al.  Computational approaches to sensorimotor transformations , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  R A Scheidt,et al.  Learning to move amid uncertainty. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[22]  J. Gold,et al.  Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  Ethem Alpaydin,et al.  Introduction to machine learning , 2004, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[26]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Computational motor control , 2004 .

[27]  John H. J. Allum,et al.  Responses to load disturbances in human shoulder muscles: The hypothesis that one component is a pulse test information signal , 1975, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Generalization in vision and motor control , 2004, Nature.

[29]  Konrad Paul Körding,et al.  The loss function of sensorimotor learning. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  M. Kawato,et al.  A hierarchical neural-network model for control and learning of voluntary movement , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[31]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Rapid Reshaping of Human Motor Generalization , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  J. Krakauer.  Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[33]  Robijanto Soetedjo,et al.  Complex Spike Activity of Purkinje Cells in the Oculomotor Vermis during Behavioral Adaptation of Monkey Saccades , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[35]  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.

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

[37]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Divided attention impairs human motor adaptation but not feedback control. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.