Flexible Switching of Feedback Control Mechanisms Allows for Learning of Different Task Dynamics

To produce skilled movements, the brain flexibly adapts to different task requirements and movement contexts. Two core abilities underlie this flexibility. First, depending on the task, the motor system must rapidly switch the way it produces motor commands and how it corrects movements online, i.e. it switches between different (feedback) control policies. Second, it must also adapt to environmental changes for different tasks separately. Here we show these two abilities are related. In a bimanual movement task, we show that participants can switch on a movement-by-movement basis between two feedback control policies, depending only on a static visual cue. When this cue indicates that the hands control separate objects, reactions to force field perturbations of each arm are purely unilateral. In contrast, when the visual cue indicates a commonly controlled object, reactions are shared across hands. Participants are also able to learn different force fields associated with a visual cue. This is however only the case when the visual cue is associated with different feedback control policies. These results indicate that when the motor system can flexibly switch between different control policies, it is also able to adapt separately to the dynamics of different environmental contexts. In contrast, visual cues that are not associated with different control policies are not effective for learning different task dynamics.

[1]  Rieko Osu,et al.  The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance , 2001, Nature.

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

[3]  Robert L Sainburg,et al.  Shared bimanual tasks elicit bimanual reflexes during movement. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Bimanual coordination as task-dependent linear control policies. , 2009, Human movement science.

[5]  D. Nozaki,et al.  Distinct Motor Plans Form and Retrieve Distinct Motor Memories for Physically Identical Movements , 2012, Current Biology.

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

[7]  Olivier White,et al.  Use-Dependent and Error-Based Learning of Motor Behaviors , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  J. Diedrichsen Optimal Task-Dependent Changes of Bimanual Feedback Control and Adaptation , 2007, Current Biology.

[9]  J. A. Pruszynski,et al.  Rapid motor responses are appropriately tuned to the metrics of a visuospatial task. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  R. Ivry,et al.  The coordination of movement: optimal feedback control and beyond , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  MOSAIC Model for Sensorimotor Learning and Control , 2001, Neural Computation.

[12]  F. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  C. Marsden,et al.  Influence of voluntary intent on the human long-latency stretch reflex , 1980, Nature.

[14]  M. Kawato,et al.  Random presentation enables subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  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.

[17]  C. Marsden,et al.  Human postural responses. , 1981, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[18]  P. Gribble,et al.  Are there distinct neural representations of object and limb dynamics? , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Ian S Howard,et al.  Composition and Decomposition in Bimanual Dynamic Learning , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[21]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Internal models and contextual cues: encoding serial order and direction of movement. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[23]  Jeremy D Wong,et al.  Distinct Haptic Cues Do Not Reduce Interference when Learning to Reach in Multiple Force Fields , 2008, PloS one.

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

[25]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm? , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.