Pharmacological Dopamine Manipulation Does Not Alter Reward-Based Improvements in Memory Retention during a Visuomotor Adaptation Task

The effects of auditory consequences on visuomotor adaptation and motor memory

Sensorimotor adaptation is a form of motor learning that is essential for maintaining motor performance across the lifespan and is integral to recovery of function after neurological injury. Recent research indicates that experiencing a balance-threatening physical consequence when making a movement error during adaptation can enhance subsequent motor memory. This is perhaps not surprising, as learning to avoid injury is critical for our survival and well-being. Reward and punishment can also differentially modify aspects of motor learning. However, it remains unclear whether other forms of non-physical consequences can impact motor learning. Here we tested the hypothesis that a loud acoustic stimulus linked to a movement error during adaptation could lead to greater generalization and consolidation. Two groups of participants (n = 12 each) adapted to a new, prism-induced visuomotor mapping while performing a precision walking task. One group experienced an unexpected loud acoustic stimulus (85 dB tone) when making foot-placement errors during adaptation. This auditory consequence group adapted faster and showed greater generalization with an interlimb transfer task, but not greater generalization to an obstacle avoidance task. Both groups showed faster relearning (i.e., savings) during the second testing session one week later despite the presence of an interference block of trials following initial adaptation, indicating successful consolidation. However, we did not find significant differences between groups with relearning during session 2. Overall, our results suggest that auditory consequences may serve as a useful method to improve motor learning, though further research is required.

Non-invasive stimulation of the human striatum disrupts reinforcement learning of motor skills

Reinforcement feedback can improve motor learning, but the underlying brain mechanisms remain underexplored. In particular, the causal contribution of specific patterns of oscillatory activity within the human striatum is unknown. To address this question, we exploited a recently developed non-invasive deep brain stimulation technique called transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS) during reinforcement motor learning with concurrent neuroimaging, in a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind study. Striatal tTIS applied at 80 Hz, but not at 20 Hz, abolished the benefits of reinforcement on motor learning. This effect was related to a selective modulation of neural activity within the striatum. Moreover, 80 Hz, but not 20 Hz, tTIS increased the neuromodulatory influence of the striatum on frontal areas involved in reinforcement motor learning. These results show that tTIS can non-invasively and selectively modulate a striatal mechanism involved in reinforcement learning, expanding our tools for the study of causal relationships between deep brain structures and human behaviour.

Reinforcement feedback impairs locomotor adaptation and retention

Introduction

Locomotor adaptation is a motor learning process used to alter spatiotemporal elements of walking that are driven by prediction errors, a discrepancy between the expected and actual outcomes of our actions. Sensory and reward prediction errors are two different types of prediction errors that can facilitate locomotor adaptation. Reward and punishment feedback generate reward prediction errors but have demonstrated mixed effects on upper extremity motor learning, with punishment enhancing adaptation, and reward supporting motor memory. However, an in-depth behavioral analysis of these distinct forms of feedback is sparse in locomotor tasks.

Methods

For this study, three groups of healthy young adults were divided into distinct feedback groups [Supervised, Reward, Punishment] and performed a novel locomotor adaptation task where each participant adapted their knee flexion to 30 degrees greater than baseline, guided by visual supervised or reinforcement feedback (Adaptation). Participants were then asked to recall the new walking pattern without feedback (Retention) and after a washout period with feedback restored (Savings).

Results

We found that all groups learned the adaptation task with external feedback. However, contrary to our initial hypothesis, enhancing sensory feedback with a visual representation of the knee angle (Supervised) accelerated the rate of learning and short-term retention in comparison to monetary reinforcement feedback. Reward and Punishment displayed similar rates of adaptation, short-term retention, and savings, suggesting both types of reinforcement feedback work similarly in locomotor adaptation. Moreover, all feedback enhanced the aftereffect of locomotor task indicating changes to implicit learning.

Discussion

These results demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of reinforcement feedback on locomotor adaptation and demonstrate the possible different neural substrates that underly reward and sensory prediction errors during different motor tasks.

Dopamine Increases Accuracy and Lengthens Deliberation Time in Explicit Motor Skill Learning

Although animal research implicates a central role for dopamine in motor skill learning, a direct causal link has yet to be established in neurotypical humans. Here, we tested if a pharmacological manipulation of dopamine alters motor learning, using a paradigm which engaged explicit, goal-directed strategies. Participants (27 females; 11 males; aged 18-29 years) first consumed either 100 mg of levodopa (n = 19), a dopamine precursor that increases dopamine availability, or placebo (n = 19). Then, during training, participants learnt the explicit strategy of aiming away from presented targets by instructed angles of varying sizes. Targets jumped mid-movement by the instructed aiming angle. Task success was thus contingent upon aiming accuracy and not speed. The effect of the dopamine manipulations on skill learning was assessed during training and after an overnight follow-up. Increasing dopamine availability at training improved aiming accuracy and lengthened reaction times, particularly for larger, more difficult aiming angles, both at training and, importantly, at follow-up, despite prominent session-by-session performance improvements in both accuracy and speed. Exogenous dopamine thus seems to result in a learnt, persistent propensity to better adhere to task goals. Results support the proposal that dopamine is important in engagement of instrumental motivation to optimize adherence to task goals, particularly when learning to execute goal-directed strategies in motor skill learning.

The intracortical excitability changes underlying the enhancing effects of rewards and punishments on motor performance

Monetary rewards and punishments enhance motor performance and are associated with corticospinal excitability (CSE) increases within the motor cortex (M1) during movement preparation. However, such CSE changes have unclear origins. Based on converging evidence, one possibility is that they stem from increased glutamatergic (GLUTergic) facilitation and/or decreased type A gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABAA)-mediated inhibition within M1. To investigate this, paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used over the left M1 to evaluate intracortical facilitation (ICF) and short intracortical inhibition (SICI), indirect assays of GLUTergic activity and GABAA-mediated inhibition, in an index finger muscle during the preparation of sequences initiated by either the right index or little finger. Behaviourally, rewards and punishments enhanced both reaction and movement time. During movement preparation, regardless of rewards or punishments, ICF increased when the index finger initiated sequences, whereas SICI decreased when both the index and little fingers initiated sequences. This finding suggests that GLUTergic activity increases in a finger-specific manner whilst GABAA-mediated inhibition decreases in a finger-unspecific manner during preparation. In parallel, both rewards and punishments non-specifically increased ICF, but only rewards non-specifically decreased SICI as compared to neutral. This suggests that to enhance performance rewards both increase GLUTergic activity and decrease GABAA-mediated inhibition, whereas punishments selectively increase GLUTergic activity. A control experiment revealed that such changes were not observed post-movement as participants processed reward and punishment feedback, indicating they were selective to movement preparation. Collectively, these results map the intracortical excitability changes in M1 by which incentives enhance motor performance.

Visuomotor errors drive step length and step time adaptation during 'virtual' split-belt walking: the effects of reinforcement feedback

Precise foot placement is dependent on changes in spatial and temporal coordination between two legs in response to a perturbation during walking. Here, we used a 'virtual' split-belt adaptation task to examine the effects of reinforcement (reward and punishment) feedback about foot placement on the changes in error, step length and step time asymmetry. Twenty-seven healthy adults (20 ± 2.5 years) walked on a treadmill with continuous feedback of the foot position and stepping targets projected on a screen, defined by a visuomotor gain for each leg. The paradigm consisted of a baseline period (same gain on both legs), visuomotor adaptation period (split: one high = 'fast', one low = 'slow' gain) and post-adaptation period (same gain). Participants were divided into 3 groups: control group received no score, reward group received increasing score for each target hit, and punishment group received decreasing score for each target missed. Re-adaptation was assessed 24 ± 2 h later. During early adaptation, the slow foot undershot and fast foot overshot the stepping target. Foot placement errors were gradually reduced by late adaptation, accompanied by increasing step length asymmetry (fast < slow step length) and step time asymmetry (fast > slow step time). Only the punishment group showed greater error reduction and step length re-adaptation on the next day. The results show that (1) explicit feedback of foot placement alone drives adaptation of both step length and step time asymmetry during virtual split-belt walking, and (2) specifically, step length re-adaptation driven by visuomotor errors may be enhanced by punishment feedback.

The cost of correcting for error during sensorimotor adaptation

Learning from error is often a slow process. In machine learning, the learning rate depends on a loss function that specifies a cost for error. Here, we hypothesized that during motor learning, error carries an implicit cost for the brain because the act of correcting for error consumes time and energy. Thus, if this implicit cost could be increased, it may robustly alter how the brain learns from error. To vary the implicit cost of error, we designed a task that combined saccade adaptation with motion discrimination: movement errors resulted in corrective saccades, but those corrections took time away from acquiring information in the discrimination task. We then modulated error cost using coherence of the discrimination task and found that when error cost was large, pupil diameter increased and the brain learned more from error. However, when error cost was small, the pupil constricted and the brain learned less from the same error. Thus, during sensorimotor adaptation, the act of correcting for error carries an implicit cost for the brain. Modulating this cost affects how much the brain learns from error.

Punishments and rewards both modestly impair visuomotor memory retention

While the effects of rewards on memory appear well documented, the effects of punishments remain uncertain. Based on neuroimaging data, this study tested the hypothesis that, as compared to a neutral condition, a context allowing successful punishment avoidance would enhance memory to a similar extent as rewards. In a fully within-subject and counter-balanced design, participants (n = 18) took part in 3 distinct learning sessions during which the delivery of performance-contingent monetary punishments and rewards was manipulated. Specifically, participants had to reach towards visual targets while compensating for a gradually introduced visual deviation. Accuracy at achieving targets was either punished (Hit: "+0$"; Miss: "-0.5$), rewarded (Hit: "+0.5$"; Miss: "-0$"), or associated with neutral binary feedback (Hit: "Hit"; Miss: "Miss"). Retention was assessed through reach aftereffects both immediately and 24 h after initial acquisition. The results disconfirmed the hypothesis by showing that the punishment and reward learning sessions both impaired retention as compared to the neutral session, suggesting that both types of incentives similarly impaired memory formation and consolidation. Two alternative but complementary interpretations are discussed. One interpretation is that the presence of punishments and rewards induced a negative learning context, which - based on neurobiological data - could have been sufficient to interfere with memory formation and consolidation. Another interpretation is that punishments and rewards emphasized the disrupting effects of target hits on implicit learning processes, therefore yielding retention impairments. Altogether, these results suggest that incentives can have counter-productive effects on memory.

Cortical preparatory activity during motor learning reflects visuomotor retention deficits after punishment feedback

Previous studies have shown that reinforcement-based motor learning requires the brain to process feedback-related information after movement execution. However, whether reinforcement feedback changes how the brain processes motor preparation before movement execution is unclear. By using electroencephalography (EEG), this study investigates whether reinforcement feedback changes cortical preparatory activity to modulate motor learning and memory. Human subjects were divided in three groups [reward, punishment, control] to perform a visuomotor rotation task under different conditions that assess adaptation (learning) and retention (memory) during the task. Reinforcement feedback was provided in the form of points after each trial that signaled monetary gains (reward) or losses (punishment). EEG was utilized to evaluate the amplitude of movement readiness potentials (MRPs) at the beginning of each trial for each group during the adaptation and retention conditions of the task. The results show that punishment feedback significantly decreased MRPs amplitude during both task conditions compared to Reward and Control groups. Moreover, the punishment-related decrease in MRPs amplitude paralleled decreases in motor performance during the retention but not the adaptation condition. No changes in MRPs or motor performance were observed in the Reward group. These results support the idea that reinforcement feedback modulates motor preparation and suggest that changes in cortical preparatory activity contribute to the visuomotor retention deficits observed after punishment feedback.

Acoustic stimulation increases implicit adaptation in sensorimotor adaptation

Sensorimotor adaptation is an important part of our ability to perform novel motor tasks (i.e., learning of motor skills). Efforts to improve adaptation in healthy and clinical patients using non-invasive brain stimulation methods have been hindered by inter-individual and intra-individual variability in brain susceptibility to stimulation. Here, we explore unpredictable loud acoustic stimulation as an alternative method of modulating brain excitability to improve sensorimotor adaptation. In two experiments, participants moved a cursor towards targets, and adapted to a 30º rotation of cursor feedback, either with or without unpredictable acoustic stimulation. Acoustic stimulation improved initial adaptation to sensory prediction errors in Study 1, and improved overnight retention of adaptation in Study 2. Unpredictable loud acoustic stimulation might thus be a potent method of modulating sensorimotor adaptation in healthy adults.

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

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 the reinforcement of rewarding actions. In the first experiment, participants performed two separate tasks in which adaptation was driven either by visual error-based 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 or 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 that have been shown to be disrupted by levodopa during various cognitive tasks.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor 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 that have been shown to be impaired by levodopa.

Punishment Feedback Impairs Memory and Changes Cortical Feedback-Related Potentials During Motor Learning

Reward and punishment have demonstrated dissociable effects on motor learning and memory, which suggests that these reinforcers are differently processed by the brain. To test this possibility, we use electroencephalography to record cortical neural activity after the presentation of reward and punishment feedback during a visuomotor rotation task. Participants were randomly placed into Reward, Punishment, or Control groups and performed the task under different conditions to assess the adaptation (learning) and retention (memory) of the motor task. These conditions featured an incongruent position between the cursor and the target, with the cursor trajectory, rotated 30° counterclockwise, requiring the participant to adapt their movement to hit the target. Feedback based on error magnitude was provided during the Adaptation condition in the form of a positive number (Reward) or negative number (Punishment), each representing a monetary gain or loss, respectively. No reinforcement or visual feedback was provided during the No Vision condition (retention). Performance error and event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to feedback presentation were calculated for each participant during both conditions. Punishment feedback reduced performance error and promoted faster learning during the Adaptation condition. In contrast, punishment feedback increased performance error during the No Vision condition compared to Control and Reward groups, which suggests a diminished motor memory. Moreover, the Punishment group showed a significant decrease in the amplitude of ERPs during the No Vision condition compared to the Adaptation condition. The amplitude of ERPs did not change in the other two groups. These results suggest that punishment feedback impairs motor retention by altering the neural processing involved in memory encoding. This study provides a neurophysiological underpinning for the dissociative effects of punishment feedback on motor learning.

Domain-Specific Working Memory, But Not Dopamine-Related Genetic Variability, Shapes Reward-Based Motor Learning

The addition of rewarding feedback to motor learning tasks has been shown to increase the retention of learning, spurring interest in its possible utility for rehabilitation. However, motor tasks using rewarding feedback have repeatedly been shown to lead to great interindividual variability in performance. Understanding the causes of such variability is vital for maximizing the potential benefits of reward-based motor learning. Thus, using a large human cohort of both sexes (n = 241), we examined whether spatial (SWM), verbal, and mental rotation (RWM) working memory capacity and dopamine-related genetic profiles were associated with performance in two reward-based motor tasks. The first task assessed the participant's ability to follow a slowly shifting reward region based on hit/miss (binary) feedback. The second task investigated the participant's capacity to preserve performance with binary feedback after adapting to the rotation with full visual feedback. Our results demonstrate that higher SWM is associated with greater success and an enhanced capacity to reproduce a successful motor action, measured as change in reach angle following reward. In contrast, higher RWM was predictive of an increased propensity to express an explicit strategy when required to make large reach angle adjustments. Therefore, SWM and RWM were reliable, but dissociable, predictors of success during reward-based motor learning. Change in reach direction following failure was also a strong predictor of success rate, although we observed no consistent relationship with working memory. Surprisingly, no dopamine-related genotypes predicted performance. Therefore, working memory capacity plays a pivotal role in determining individual ability in reward-based motor learning.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Reward-based motor learning tasks have repeatedly been shown to lead to idiosyncratic behaviors that cause varying degrees of task success. Yet, the factors determining an individual's capacity to use reward-based feedback are unclear. Here, we assessed a wide range of possible candidate predictors, and demonstrate that domain-specific working memory plays an essential role in determining individual capacity to use reward-based feedback. Surprisingly, genetic variations in dopamine availability were not found to play a role. This is in stark contrast with seminal work in the reinforcement and decision-making literature, which show strong and replicated effects of the same dopaminergic genes in decision-making. Therefore, our results provide novel insights into reward-based motor learning, highlighting a key role for domain-specific working memory capacity.

Rewards interact with repetition-dependent learning to enhance long-term retention of motor memories

The combination of behavioral experiences that enhance long-term retention remains largely unknown. Informed by neurophysiological lines of work, this study tested the hypothesis that performance-contingent monetary rewards potentiate repetition-dependent forms of learning, as induced by extensive practice at asymptote, to enhance long-term retention of motor memories. To this end, six groups of 14 participants (n = 84) acquired novel motor behaviors by adapting to a gradual visuomotor rotation while these factors were manipulated. Retention was assessed 24 h later. While all groups similarly acquired the novel motor behaviors, results from the retention session revealed an interaction indicating that rewards enhanced long-term retention, but only when practice was extended to asymptote. Specifically, the interaction indicated that this effect selectively occurred when rewards were intermittently available (i.e., 50%), but not when they were absent (i.e., 0%) or continuously available (i.e., 100%) during acquisition. This suggests that the influence of rewards on extensive practice and long-term retention is nonlinear, as continuous rewards did not further enhance retention as compared with intermittent rewards. One possibility is that rewards' intermittent availability allows to maintain their subjective value during acquisition, which may be key to potentiate long-term retention.