Domain-specific working memory, but not dopamine-related genetic variability, shapes reward-based motor learning

Codol, Olivier; Holland, Peter Anthony; Oxley, Elizabeth; Taylor, Maddison; Hamshere, Elizabeth; Joseph, Shadiq; Huffer, Laura; Galea, Joseph M.

doi:10.1101/524900

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(115 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Quattrocchi et al 2018) found no effect of levodopa or a dopamine antagonist haloperidol on modulation of sensory error-based learning by additional reinforcement feedback. (Holland et al 2019) found no association between dopamine-related gene polymorphisms on adaptation through binary reinforcement feedback in a task similar to that used in the current study. Together, these findings suggest that reward-based motor adaptation may not rely on dopamine function.…”

Section: Visuomotor Rotation Taskcontrasting

confidence: 59%

Null effects of levodopa on reward- and error-based motor adaptation, savings, and anterograde interference

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dopamine signaling is thought to mediate reward-based learning. We tested for a role of dopamine in motor adaptation by administering the dopamine precursor levodopa to healthy participants in two experiments involving reaching movements. Levodopa has been shown to impair reward-based learning in cognitive tasks. Thus, we hypothesized that levodopa would selectively impair aspects of motor adaptation that depend on reinforcement of rewarding actions.In the first experiment, participants performed two separate tasks in which adaptation was driven either by visual feedback of the hand position or binary reward feedback. We used EEG to measure event-related potentials evoked by task feedback. We hypothesized that levodopa would specifically diminish adaptation and the neural responses to feedback in the reward learning task. However, levodopa did not affect motor adaptation in either task nor did it diminish event-related potentials elicited by reward outcomes.In the second experiment, participants learned to compensate for mechanical force field perturbations applied to the hand during reaching. Previous exposure to a particular force field can result in savings during subsequent adaptation to the same force field and interference during adaptation to an opposite force field. We hypothesized that levodopa would diminish savings and anterograde interference, as previous work suggests that these phenomena result from a reinforcement learning process. However, we found no reliable effects of levodopa.These results suggest that reward-based motor adaptation, savings, and interference may not depend on the same dopaminergic mechanisms which have been shown to be disrupted by levodopa during various cognitive tasks.New and NoteworthyMotor adaptation relies on multiple processes including reinforcement of successful actions. Cognitive reinforcement learning is impaired by levodopa-induced disruption of dopamine function. We administered levodopa to healthy adults who participated in multiple motor adaptation tasks. We found no effects of levodopa on any component of motor adaptation. This suggests that motor adaptation may not depend on the same dopaminergic mechanisms as cognitive forms or reinforcement learning which have been shown to be impaired by levodopa.

show abstract

Section: Visuomotor Rotation Taskcontrasting

confidence: 59%

Null effects of levodopa on reward- and error-based motor adaptation, savings, and anterograde interference

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach of switching between motor patterns has been used previously to examine motor control. [20][21][22] On day 2, participants completed 5 subtests from the Cognitive Battery of the NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIHTB-CB) in the NIH Toolbox iPad App (version 1.19.2160). 23,24 These 5 subtests included the (1) Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, which measures attention and inhibition (an executive function), (2) Dimensional Change Card Sort Test, which measures one's ability to switch mental sets (an executive function) in response to an explicit cue, (3) List Sorting Working Memory Test, which measures working memory, (4) Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test, which measures processing speed, and (5) Picture Sequence Memory Test, which measures episodic memory.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid Cognition Relates to Locomotor Switching in Neurotypical Adults, Not Individuals After Stroke

French

Cohen²,

Pohlig³

et al. 2021

Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose:The ability to switch between walking patterns (ie, locomotor switching) is vital for successful community navigation and may be impacted by poststroke impairments. Thus, the purpose of this work was to examine locomotor switching and the relationship between locomotor switching and fluid cognition in individuals after stroke compared with neurotypical adults. Methods: Twenty-nine individuals more than 6 months after stroke and 18 neurotypical adults participated in a 2-day study. On day 1, participants were taught a new walking pattern on the treadmill and then locomotor switching was assessed by instructing participants to switch between the new walking pattern and their usual walking pattern. The change between these 2 patterns was calculated as the switching index. On day 2, the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery was administered to obtain the Fluid Cognition Composite Score (FCCS), which reflected fluid cognition. The switching index was compared between groups using an analysis of covariance, and the relationship between locomotor switching and fluid cognition was assessed with regression. Results: Individuals after stroke had significantly lower switching indexes compared with neurotypical adults (P = 0.03). The regression showed a significant interaction between group and FCCS (P = 0.002), with the FCCS predicting the switching index in neurotypical adults but not in individuals after stroke. Discussion and Conclusions: Individuals after stroke appear to have deficits in locomotor switching compared with neurotypical adults. Departments of Physical Therapy (M.A.F., D.S.R.) and Communication Sciences and Disorders (M.L.

show abstract

Domain-specific working memory, but not dopamine-related genetic variability, shapes reward-based motor learning

Cited by 2 publications

References 56 publications

Null effects of levodopa on reward- and error-based motor adaptation, savings, and anterograde interference

Null effects of levodopa on reward- and error-based motor adaptation, savings, and anterograde interference

Fluid Cognition Relates to Locomotor Switching in Neurotypical Adults, Not Individuals After Stroke

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About