Movement adaptation in response to systematic motor perturbations exhibits distinct spatial and temporal properties. These characteristics are typically studied in isolation, leaving the interaction largely unknown. Here we examined how the temporal decay of visuomotor adaptation influences the spatial generalization of the motor recalibration. First, we quantified the extent to which adaptation decayed over time. Subjects reached to a peripheral target, and a rotation was applied to the visual feedback of the unseen motion. The retention of this adaptation over different delays (0-120 s) ) decreased by 29.0 ± 6.8% at the longest delay and) was represented by a simple exponential, with a time constant of 22.5 ± 5.6 s. On the basis of this relationship we simulated how the spatial generalization of adaptation would change with delay. To test this directly, we trained additional subjects with the same perturbation and assessed transfer to 19 different locations (spaced 15° apart, symmetric around the trained location) and examined three delays (~4, 12, and 25 s). Consistent with the simulation, we found that generalization around the trained direction (±15°) significantly decreased with delay and distance, while locations >60° displayed near-constant spatiotemporal transfer. Intermediate distances (30° and 45°) showed a difference in transfer across space, but this amount was approximately constant across time. Interestingly, the decay at the trained direction was faster than that based purely on time, suggesting that the spatial transfer of adaptation is modified by concurrent passive (time dependent) and active (movement dependent) processes. Short-term motor adaptation exhibits distinct spatial and temporal characteristics. Here we investigated the interaction of these features, utilizing a simple motor adaptation paradigm (recalibration of reaching arm movements in response to rotated visual feedback). We examined the changes in the spatial generalization of motor adaptation for different temporal manipulations and report that the spatiotemporal generalization of motor adaptation is generally local and is influenced by both passive (time dependent) and active (movement dependent) learning processes.

Humans rapidly adapt reaching movements in response to perturbations (e.g., manipulations of movement dynamics or visual feedback). Following a break, when reexposed to the same perturbation, subjects demonstrate savings, a faster learning rate compared with the time course of initial training. Although this has been well studied, there are open questions on the extent early savings reflects the rapid recall of previous performance. To address this question, we examined how the properties of initial training (duration and final adaptive state) influence initial single-trial adaptation to force-field perturbations when training sessions were separated by 24 h. There were two main groups that were distinct based on the presence or absence of a washout period at the end of day 1 (with washout vs. without washout). We also varied the training duration on day 1 (15, 30, 90, or 160 training trials), resulting in 8 subgroups of subjects. We show that single-trial adaptation on day 2 scaled with training duration, even for similar asymptotic levels of learning on day 1 of training. Interestingly, the temporal force profile following the first perturbation on day 2 matched that at the end of day 1 for the longest training duration group that did not complete the washout. This correspondence persisted but was significantly lower for shorter training durations and the washout subject groups. Collectively, the results suggest that the adaptation observed very early in reexposure results from the rapid recall of the previously learned motor recalibration but is highly dependent on the initial training duration and final adaptive state. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The extent initial readaptation reflects the recall of previous motor performance is largely unknown. We examined early single-trial force-field adaptation on the second day of training and distinguished initial retention from recall. We found that the single-trial adaptation following the 24-h break matched that at the end of the first day, but this recall was modified by the training duration and final level of learning on the first day of training.

No abstract