2022
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interactions between sensory prediction error and task error during implicit motor learning

Abstract: Implicit motor recalibration allows us to flexibly move in novel and changing environments. Conventionally, implicit recalibration is thought to be driven by errors in predicting the sensory outcome of movement (i.e., sensory prediction errors). However, recent studies have shown that implicit recalibration is also influenced by errors in achieving the movement goal (i.e., task errors). Exactly how sensory prediction errors and task errors interact to drive implicit recalibration and, in particular, whether ta… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
74
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
(91 reference statements)
3
74
3
Order By: Relevance
“…While, implicit adaptation has been thought to be elicited by sensory prediction error (Mazzoni and Krakauer, 2006 ; Shadmehr et al, 2010 ). Additionally, it has been shown that a visuomotor rotation task without sensory prediction error but with only task error does not induce trial-by-trial implicit adaptation (Tsay et al, 2022 ). Further studies are required to specifically investigate implicit adaptation without sensory prediction error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While, implicit adaptation has been thought to be elicited by sensory prediction error (Mazzoni and Krakauer, 2006 ; Shadmehr et al, 2010 ). Additionally, it has been shown that a visuomotor rotation task without sensory prediction error but with only task error does not induce trial-by-trial implicit adaptation (Tsay et al, 2022 ). Further studies are required to specifically investigate implicit adaptation without sensory prediction error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted in-person experiments, the experiments were implemented on an online platform (OnPoint) that participants accessed remotely using a laptop computer [37]. This online platform has been shown to produce similar results to in-person experiments in studies of adaptation to visuomotor transformations [37][38][39]. Participants were instructed to place the laptop on a table or desk and to sit comfortably in front of it with the laptop centered at the body midline (Figure 2a).…”
Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted the experiments using an online platform [37]. Although the results obtained from the online platform are similar to in-person results for VMR tasks [37][38][39], the arm posture in our experiment should be controlled, as it is related to the shape of the manipulability ellipse of the arm because the posture determines the arm Jacobian [25]. We instructed the participants to adopt a similar posture across all experimental conditions, but did not control for the posture.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is possible that the Gaussian cloud led to lower adaptation because the added noise induced more ‘successful’ trials, given previous work showing that implicit adaptation is attenuated when the visual cursor intersects the target ( Leow et al, 2018 ; Leow et al, 2020 ; Tsay et al, 2022a ). This concern was one of the reasons why we blanked the target at reach onset in Tsay et al, 2020a .…”
Section: Empirical Support For the Proprioceptive Re-alignment Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%