The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning mechanisms underlying motor adaptation of arm movements to externally applied perturbing forces. We considered two alternative hypotheses. According to one, adaptation occurs through the learning of a mapping between the states (positions and velocities) visited by the arm and the forces experienced at those states. The alternative hypothesis is that adaptation occurs through the memorization of the temporal sequence of forces experienced along specific trajectories. The first mechanism corresponds to developing a model of the dynamics of the environment, whereas the second is a form of "rote learning." Both types of learning would lead to the recovery of the unperturbed performance. We have tested these hypotheses by examining how adaptation is transferred across different types of movements. Our results indicate that 1) adaptation to an externally applied force field occurs with different classes of movements including but not limited to reaching movements and 2) adaptation generalizes across different movements that visit the same regions of the external field. These findings are not compatible with the hypothesis of rote learning. Instead, they are consistent with the hypothesis that adaptation to changes in movement dynamics is achieved by a module that learns to reproduce the structure of the environmental field as an association between visited states and experienced forces, independent of the kinematics of the movements made during adaptation.

[1]  F. M. Henry,et al.  Increased Response Latency for Complicated Movements and A “Memory Drum” Theory of Neuromotor Reaction , 1960 .

[2]  R. Held,et al.  PLASTICITY IN HUMAN SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL. , 1963, Science.

[3]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Movement control in skilled motor performance. , 1968 .

[4]  R. Schmidt A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. , 1975 .

[5]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[7]  D. C. Howell Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

[8]  O. Bock Load compensation in human goal-directed arm movements , 1990, Behavioural Brain Research.

[9]  Otmar Bock,et al.  Early stages of load compensation in human aimed arm movements , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[10]  R. Happee Goal-directed arm movements. III: Feedback and adaptation in response to inertia perturbations. , 1993, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[11]  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.

[12]  J. Lackner,et al.  Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  A G Feldman,et al.  One-trial adaptation of movement to changes in load. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[15]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Equilibrium-Point Control Hypothesis Examined by Measured Arm Stiffness During Multijoint Movement , 1996, Science.

[16]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement , 1997, Biological Cybernetics.

[17]  R Shadmehr,et al.  Electromyographic Correlates of Learning an Internal Model of Reaching Movements , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.