Motor Adaptation as a Process of Reoptimization

Adaptation is sometimes viewed as a process in which the nervous system learns to predict and cancel effects of a novel environment, returning movements to near baseline (unperturbed) conditions. An alternate view is that cancellation is not the goal of adaptation. Rather, the goal is to maximize performance in that environment. If performance criteria are well defined, theory allows one to predict the reoptimized trajectory. For example, if velocity-dependent forces perturb the hand perpendicular to the direction of a reaching movement, the best reach plan is not a straight line but a curved path that appears to overcompensate for the forces. If this environment is stochastic (changing from trial to trial), the reoptimized plan should take into account this uncertainty, removing the overcompensation. If the stochastic environment is zero-mean, peak velocities should increase to allow for more time to approach the target. Finally, if one is reaching through a via-point, the optimum plan in a zero-mean deterministic environment is a smooth movement but in a zero-mean stochastic environment is a segmented movement. We observed all of these tendencies in how people adapt to novel environments. Therefore, motor control in a novel environment is not a process of perturbation cancellation. Rather, the process resembles reoptimization: through practice in the novel environment, we learn internal models that predict sensory consequences of motor commands. Through reward-based optimization, we use the internal model to search for a better movement plan to minimize implicit motor costs and maximize rewards.

[1]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  W HERRBERG,et al.  [Spontaneous perforation of a shell fragment abscess into the ureter]. , 1954, Zeitschrift fur Urologie.

[3]  宇野 洋二,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement : minimum torque-change model , 1988 .

[4]  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.

[5]  W. T. Thach,et al.  Throwing while looking through prisms. II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[6]  W. T. Thach,et al.  Throwing while looking through prisms. I. Focal olivocerebellar lesions impair adaptation. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  Peter Dayan,et al.  A Neural Substrate of Prediction and Reward , 1997, Science.

[8]  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.

[9]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning , 1998, Nature.

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

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

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

[13]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning the dynamics of reaching movements results in the modification of arm impedance and long-latency perturbation responses , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[15]  N. Hogan,et al.  Procedural motor learning in Parkinson's disease , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Kelvin E. Jones,et al.  Sources of signal-dependent noise during isometric force production. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  W. Schultz,et al.  Discrete Coding of Reward Probability and Uncertainty by Dopamine Neurons , 2003, Science.

[21]  M. Kawato,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[22]  T. Ebner,et al.  Hereditary cerebellar ataxia progressively impairs force adaptation during goal-directed arm movements. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  Kelvin E. Jones,et al.  The scaling of motor noise with muscle strength and motor unit number in humans , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  R. J. van Beers,et al.  The role of execution noise in movement variability. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  A. Bahill,et al.  Determining ideal baseball bat weights using muscle force-velocity relationships , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[26]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Intact ability to learn internal models of arm dynamics in Huntington's disease but not cerebellar degeneration. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[28]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Internal models of limb dynamics and the encoding of limb state , 2005, Journal of neural engineering.

[29]  Emanuel Todorov,et al.  Stochastic Optimal Control and Estimation Methods Adapted to the Noise Characteristics of the Sensorimotor System , 2005, Neural Computation.

[30]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Adaptation and generalization in acceleration-dependent force fields , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[31]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  The Main Sequence of Saccades Optimizes Speed-accuracy Trade-off , 2006, Biological Cybernetics.

[32]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Effects of human cerebellar thalamus disruption on adaptive control of reaching. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[33]  James L Patton,et al.  Haptic identification of surfaces as fields of force. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Near-Optimal Human Adaptive Control across Different Noise Environments , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

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

[37]  Emanuel Todorov,et al.  Iterative linearization methods for approximately optimal control and estimation of non-linear stochastic system , 2007, Int. J. Control.

[38]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Why Don't We Move Faster? Parkinson's Disease, Movement Vigor, and Implicit Motivation , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  Raul Benitez,et al.  Motor adaptation as a greedy optimization of error and effort. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[40]  Wei Wang,et al.  Influence of viscous loads on motor planning. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  D. Nowak,et al.  Dexterity in cerebellar agenesis , 2007, Neuropsychologia.