Learning Redundant Motor Tasks with and without Overlapping Dimensions: Facilitation and Interference Effects

Prior learning of a motor skill creates motor memories that can facilitate or interfere with learning of new, but related, motor skills. One hypothesis of motor learning posits that for a sensorimotor task with redundant degrees of freedom, the nervous system learns the geometric structure of the task and improves performance by selectively operating within that task space. We tested this hypothesis by examining if transfer of learning between two tasks depends on shared dimensionality between their respective task spaces. Human participants wore a data glove and learned to manipulate a computer cursor by moving their fingers. Separate groups of participants learned two tasks: a prior task that was unique to each group and a criterion task that was common to all groups. We manipulated the mapping between finger motions and cursor positions in the prior task to define task spaces that either shared or did not share the task space dimensions (x-y axes) of the criterion task. We found that if the prior task shared task dimensions with the criterion task, there was an initial facilitation in criterion task performance. However, if the prior task did not share task dimensions with the criterion task, there was prolonged interference in learning the criterion task due to participants finding inefficient task solutions. These results show that the nervous system learns the task space through practice, and that the degree of shared task space dimensionality influences the extent to which prior experience transfers to subsequent learning of related motor skills.

[1]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Structural learning in feedforward and feedback control. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Remapping hand movements in a novel geometrical environment. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Consolidation in human motor memory , 1996, Nature.

[4]  C. Osgood The similarity paradox in human learning; a resolution. , 1949, Psychological review.

[5]  M. Latash,et al.  Optimality vs. variability: an example of multi-finger redundant tasks , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  E. Todorov Optimality principles in sensorimotor control , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  Gavan Lintern,et al.  Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior , 1997, Complex.

[8]  R. Stickgold,et al.  Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation , 2003, Nature.

[9]  Daniel A. Braun,et al.  Motor Task Variation Induces Structural Learning , 2009, Current Biology.

[10]  Dmitry Kobak,et al.  Adaptation Paths to Novel Motor Tasks Are Shaped by Prior Structure Learning , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Gregor Schöner,et al.  The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  M. Latash,et al.  Motor Control Strategies Revealed in the Structure of Motor Variability , 2002, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[13]  Marco Santello,et al.  Compensatory motor control after stroke: an alternative joint strategy for object-dependent shaping of hand posture. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  Aymar de Rugy,et al.  Muscle Coordination Is Habitual Rather than Optimal , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  Xiaolin Liu,et al.  Contributions of online visual feedback to the learning and generalization of novel finger coordination patterns. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  Rajiv Ranganathan,et al.  Influence of Augmented Feedback on Coordination Strategies , 2009, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  P G Zanone,et al.  Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning: nonequilibrium phase transitions. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  E. Thorndike,et al.  The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). , 1901 .

[19]  Daniel A. Braun,et al.  Structure learning in action , 2010, Behavioural Brain Research.

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

[21]  E. R. Guthrie The psychology of learning, Rev. ed. , 1952 .

[22]  A. Jackson,et al.  Flexible Cortical Control of Task-Specific Muscle Synergies , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  A. Opstal Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior , 1995 .

[24]  Maura Casadio,et al.  Reorganization of finger coordination patterns during adaptation to rotation and scaling of a newly learned sensorimotor transformation. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Andrea d'Avella,et al.  Differences in Adaptation Rates after Virtual Surgeries Provide Direct Evidence for Modularity , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  Rajiv Ranganathan,et al.  Learning to be Lazy: Exploiting Redundancy in a Novel Task to Minimize Movement-Related Effort , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  J. Deese The psychology of learning , 1952 .

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

[29]  D. Lewis,et al.  Facilitation and interference in performance on the modified Mashburn apparatus: I. The effects of varying the amount of original learning. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  E Burdet,et al.  Motor memory and local minimization of error and effort, not global optimization, determine motor behavior. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.