Implicit adaptation to mirror reversal is in the correct coordinate system but the wrong direction

Distinct learning, retention, and generalization patterns in de novo learning versus motor adaptation

People correct for movement errors when acquiring new motor skills (de novo learning) or adapting well-known movements (motor adaptation). While de novo learning establishes new control policies, adaptation modifies existing ones, and previous work have distinguished behavioral and underlying brain mechanisms for each motor learning type. However, it is still unclear whether learning in each type interferes with the other. In study 1, we use a within-subjects design where participants train with both 30° visuomotor rotation and mirror reversal perturbations, to compare adaptation and de novo learning respectively. We find no perturbation order effects, and find no evidence for differences in learning rates and asymptotes for both perturbations. Explicit instructions also provide an advantage during early learning in both perturbations. However, mirror reversal learning shows larger inter-participant variability and slower movement initiation. Furthermore, we only observe reach aftereffects following rotation training. In study 2, we incorporate the mirror reversal in a browser-based task, to investigate under-studied de novo learning mechanisms like retention and generalization. Learning persists across three or more days, substantially transfers to the untrained hand, and to targets on both sides of the mirror axis. Our results extend insights for distinguishing motor skill acquisition from adapting well-known movements.

A cerebellar population coding model for sensorimotor learning

The cerebellum is crucial for sensorimotor adaptation, using error information to keep the sensorimotor system well-calibrated. Here we introduce a population-coding model to explain how cerebellar-dependent learning is modulated by contextual variation. The model consists of a two-layer network, designed to capture activity in both the cerebellar cortex and deep cerebellar nuclei. A core feature of the model is that within each layer, the processing units are tuned to both movement direction and the direction of movement error. The model captures a large range of contextual effects including interference from prior learning and the influence of error uncertainty and volatility. While these effects have traditionally been taken to indicate meta learning or context-dependent memory within the adaptation system, our results show that they are emergent properties that arise from the population dynamics within the cerebellum. Our results provide a novel framework to understand how the nervous system responds to variable environments.

Perturbation Variability Does Not Influence Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation

Implicit adaptation has been regarded as a rigid process that automatically operates in response to movement errors to keep the sensorimotor system precisely calibrated. This hypothesis has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting flexibility in this learning process. One compelling line of evidence comes from work suggesting that this form of learning is context-dependent, with the rate of learning modulated by error history. Specifically, learning was attenuated in the presence of perturbations exhibiting high variance compared to when the perturbation is fixed. However, these findings are confounded by the fact that the adaptation system corrects for errors of different magnitudes in a non-linear manner, with the adaptive response increasing in a proportional manner to small errors and saturating to large errors. Through simulations, we show that this non-linear motor correction function is sufficient to explain the effect of perturbation variance without referring to an experience-dependent change in error sensitivity. Moreover, by controlling the distribution of errors experienced during training, we provide empirical evidence showing that there is no measurable effect of perturbation variance on implicit adaptation. As such, we argue that the evidence to date remains consistent with the rigidity assumption.