A Dual Process Account of Coarticulation in Motor Skill Acquisition

Shah, Ashvin; Barto, Andrew G.; Fagg, Andrew H.

doi:10.1080/00222895.2013.837423

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sequential movements form a large part of everyday life. From taking a shower to chopping vegetables, many seemingly trivial daily tasks are made up of several distinct sub-movements [1,2] blended into a continuous action for efficiency after learning [3]. As these types of movement are so critical for independence in everyday life, when age-related motor decline or age-related diseases such as stroke impact the motor system, it becomes necessary to improve performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-Related Differences in Reward-Based Modulation of Sequential Reaching Performance

Aves

Moreau

Alghamdi

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reward can increase the speed and accuracy of movements in both simple and sequential reaching tasks. Two mechanisms are thought to be responsible for this: an increase in maximum velocity, due to increased muscle stiffness, resulting in faster, but energetically inefficient, individual movements; or coarticulation; the blending of sub-movements into single, smoother, more energetically efficient movements. Older adults have shown reduced sensitivity to reward in decision paradigms, but there is little research relating reward and motor performance in older adults. Using a novel online sequential reaching task, we compared the effects of reward on motor performance between young (18-23 years) and older (65-79 years) participants. We found that movement time decreased across training in all groups, and reward invigorated this decrease in both age groups. This suggests that reward is a viable facilitator of motor performance to compensate for age-related motor decline and has the potential for use in the design of rehabilitation programmes for age-related motor deficits or disease.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-Related Differences in Reward-Based Modulation of Sequential Reaching Performance

Aves

Moreau

Alghamdi

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is prominent in speech, in which the execution of a given phoneme can be systematically varied depending on the word in which it is embedded. Such natural context-dependent modification of gestures (“coarticulation”) is thought to enable the smooth and rapid performance of speech (Bouchard and Chang, 2014) and skills as diverse as piano playing (Engel et al, 1997), sign language (Jerde et al, 2003), and reaching and grasping (Ansuini et al, 2008; Shah et al, 2013; Sosnik et al, 2004). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrete Circuits Support Generalized versus Context-Specific Vocal Learning in the Songbird

Tian

Brainard

2017

Neuron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Motor skills depend on the reuse of individual gestures in multiple sequential contexts (e.g., a single phoneme in different words). Yet optimal performance requires that a given gesture be modified appropriately depending on the sequence in which it occurs. To investigate the neural architecture underlying such context-dependent modifications, we studied Bengalese finch song, a skill that, like speech, consists of variable sequences of “syllables.” We found that when birds are instructed to modify a syllable in one sequential context, learning generalizes across contexts; however, if unique instruction is provided in different contexts, learning is specific for each context. Using localized inactivation of a cortical-basal ganglia circuit specialized for song, we show this balance between generalization and specificity reflects a hierarchical organization of neural substrates. Primary motor circuitry encodes a “core” syllable representation that contributes to generalization, while top-down input from cortical-basal ganglia circuitry biases this representation to enable context-specific learning.

show abstract

“…Experimental studies describe how the development and execution of observed behavior in biological systems may be distributed across different learning and control processes (Dickinson, 1985 ; Milner et al, 1998 ; Packard and Knowlton, 2002 ; Pasupathy and Miller, 2005 ; Yin et al, 2008 ; Balleine et al, 2009 ; Balleine and O'Dohrety, 2010 ; Redgrave et al, 2010 ). Conceptual and computational accounts, inspired in part by these studies, demonstrate the functional advantages of such distribution (Kawato, 1990 ; Rosenstein and Barto, 2004 ; Daw et al, 2005 ; Haruno and Kawato, 2006 ; Samejima and Doya, 2007 ; Bissmarck et al, 2008 ; Shah and Barto, 2009 ; Ashby et al, 2010 ; Shah et al, 2013 ). Within the context of the work presented in this paper, no-cost rules reinforce actions that achieve the outcome but do not attenuate reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding minimal action sequences with a simple evaluation of actions

Shah

Gurney

2014

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals are able to discover the minimal number of actions that achieves an outcome (the minimal action sequence). In most accounts of this, actions are associated with a measure of behavior that is higher for actions that lead to the outcome with a shorter action sequence, and learning mechanisms find the actions associated with the highest measure. In this sense, previous accounts focus on more than the simple binary signal of “was the outcome achieved?”; they focus on “how well was the outcome achieved?” However, such mechanisms may not govern all types of behavioral development. In particular, in the process of action discovery (Redgrave and Gurney, 2006), actions are reinforced if they simply lead to a salient outcome because biological reinforcement signals occur too quickly to evaluate the consequences of an action beyond an indication of the outcome's occurrence. Thus, action discovery mechanisms focus on the simple evaluation of “was the outcome achieved?” and not “how well was the outcome achieved?” Notwithstanding this impoverishment of information, can the process of action discovery find the minimal action sequence? We address this question by implementing computational mechanisms, referred to in this paper as no-cost learning rules, in which each action that leads to the outcome is associated with the same measure of behavior. No-cost rules focus on “was the outcome achieved?” and are consistent with action discovery. No-cost rules discover the minimal action sequence in simulated tasks and execute it for a substantial amount of time. Extensive training, however, results in extraneous actions, suggesting that a separate process (which has been proposed in action discovery) must attenuate learning if no-cost rules participate in behavioral development. We describe how no-cost rules develop behavior, what happens when attenuation is disrupted, and relate the new mechanisms to wider computational and biological context.

show abstract

A Dual Process Account of Coarticulation in Motor Skill Acquisition

Cited by 8 publications

References 112 publications

Age-Related Differences in Reward-Based Modulation of Sequential Reaching Performance

Age-Related Differences in Reward-Based Modulation of Sequential Reaching Performance

Discrete Circuits Support Generalized versus Context-Specific Vocal Learning in the Songbird

Finding minimal action sequences with a simple evaluation of actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About