Anterograde interference emerges when two differing tasks are learned in close temporal proximity, an effect repeatedly attributed to a competition between differing task memories. However, recent development alternatively suggests that initial learning may trigger a refractory period that occludes neuroplasticity and impairs subsequent learning, consequently mediating interference independently of memory competition. Accordingly, this study tested the hypothesis that interference can emerge when the same motor task is being learned twice, that is when competition between memories is prevented. In a first experiment, the inter-session interval (ISI) between two identical motor learning sessions was manipulated to be 2 min, 1 h or 24 h. Results revealed that retention of the second session was impaired as compared to the first one when the ISI was 2 min but not when it was 1 h or 24 h, indicating a time-dependent process. Results from a second experiment replicated those of the first one and revealed that adding a third motor learning session with a 2 min ISI further impaired retention, indicating a dose-dependent process. Results from a third experiment revealed that the retention impairments did not take place when a learning session was preceded by simple rehearsal of the motor task without concurrent learning, thus ruling out fatigue and confirming that retention is impaired specifically when preceded by a learning session. Altogether, the present results suggest that competing memories is not the sole mechanism mediating anterograde interference and introduce the possibility that a time- and dose-dependent refractory period—independent of fatigue—also contributes to its emergence. One possibility is that learning transiently perturbs the homeostasis of learning-related neuronal substrates. Introducing additional learning when homeostasis is still perturbed may not only impair performance improvements, but also memory formation.

Intermittent exposure to a sensorimotor perturbation, such as a visuomotor rotation, is known to cause a directional bias on the subsequent movement that opposes the previously experienced perturbation. To date, it is unclear whether the parietal cortex is causally involved in this postperturbation movement bias. In a recent electroencephalogram study, Savoie et al. (2018) observed increased parietal activity in response to an intermittent visuomotor perturbation, raising the possibility that the parietal cortex could subserve this change in motor behavior. The goal of the present study was to causally test this hypothesis. Human participants (N = 28) reached toward one of two visual targets located on either side of a fixation point, while being pseudorandomly submitted to a visuomotor rotation. On half of all rotation trials, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over the right (N = 14) or left (N = 14) parietal cortex 150 ms after visual feedback provision. To determine whether TMS influenced the postperturbation bias, reach direction was compared on trials that followed rotation with (RS 1 1) and without (R 1 1) TMS. It was hypothesized that interfering with parietal activity would reduce the movement bias following rotated trials. Results revealed a significant and robust postrotation directional bias compared with both rotation and null rotation trials. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, neither left nor right parietal stimulation significantly impacted the postrotation bias. These data suggest that the parietal areas targeted here may not be critical for perturbation-induced motor output changes to emerge.