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

Dopamine D2 Receptor Modulates Exercise Related Effect on Cortical Excitation/Inhibition and Motor Skill Acquisition

Exercise is known to benefit motor skill learning in health and neurological disease. Evidence from brain stimulation, genotyping, and Parkinson's disease studies converge to suggest that the dopamine D2 receptor, and shifts in the cortical excitation and inhibition (E:I) balance, are prime candidates for the drivers of exercise-enhanced motor learning. However, causal evidence using experimental pharmacological challenge is lacking. We hypothesized that the modulatory effect of the dopamine D2 receptor on exercise-induced changes in the E:I balance would determine the magnitude of motor skill acquisition. To test this, we measured exercise-induced changes in excitation and inhibition using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in 22 healthy female and male humans, and then had participants learn a novel motor skill-the sequential visual isometric pinch task (SVIPT). We examined the effect of D2 receptor blockade (800 mg sulpiride) on these measures within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Our key result was that motor skill acquisition was driven by an interaction between the D2 receptor and E:I balance. Specifically, poorer skill learning was related to an attenuated shift in the E:I balance in the sulpiride condition, whereas this interaction was not evident in placebo. Our results demonstrate that exercise-primed motor skill acquisition is causally influenced by D2 receptor activity on motor cortical circuits.

Implicit reward-based motor learning

Binary feedback, providing information solely about task success or failure, can be sufficient to drive motor learning. While binary feedback can induce explicit adjustments in movement strategy, it remains unclear if this type of feedback also induces implicit learning. We examined this question in a center-out reaching task by gradually moving an invisible reward zone away from a visual target to a final rotation of 7.5° or 25° in a between-group design. Participants received binary feedback, indicating if the movement intersected the reward zone. By the end of the training, both groups modified their reach angle by about 95% of the rotation. We quantified implicit learning by measuring performance in a subsequent no-feedback aftereffect phase, in which participants were told to forgo any adopted movement strategies and reach directly to the visual target. The results showed a small, but robust (2-3°) aftereffect in both groups, highlighting that binary feedback elicits implicit learning. Notably, for both groups, reaches to two flanking generalization targets were biased in the same direction as the aftereffect. This pattern is at odds with the hypothesis that implicit learning is a form of use-dependent learning. Rather, the results suggest that binary feedback can be sufficient to recalibrate a sensorimotor map.

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

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. The relationship between fluid cognition and locomotor switching was significant in neurotypical adults but not in individuals after stroke. Future work to understand the relationship between specific cognitive domains and locomotor switching is needed (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A361).

Younger and Late Middle-Aged Adults Exhibit Different Patterns of Cognitive-Motor Interference During Locomotor Adaptation, With No Disruption of Savings

It has been proposed that motor adaptation and subsequent savings (or faster relearning) of an adapted movement pattern are mediated by cognitive processes. Here, we evaluated the pattern of cognitive-motor interference that emerges when young and late middle-aged adults perform an executive working memory task during locomotor adaptation. We also asked if this interferes with savings of a newly learned walking pattern, as has been suggested by a study of reaching adaptation. We studied split-belt treadmill adaptation and savings in young (21 ± 2 y/o) and late middle-aged (56 ± 6 y/o) adults with or without a secondary 2-back task during adaptation. We found that young adults showed similar performance on the 2-back task during baseline and adaptation, suggesting no effect of the dual-task on cognitive performance; however, dual-tasking interfered with adaptation over the first few steps. Conversely, dual-tasking caused a decrement in cognitive performance in late middle-aged adults with no effect on adaptation. To determine if this effect was specific to adaptation, we also evaluated dual-task interference in late middle-aged adults that dual-tasked while walking in a complex environment that did not induce motor adaptation. This group exhibited less cognitive-motor interference than late middle-aged adults who dual-tasked during adaptation. Savings was unaffected by dual-tasking in both young and late middle-aged adults, which may indicate different underlying mechanisms for savings of reaching and walking. Collectively, our findings reveal an age-dependent effect of cognitive-motor interference during dual-task locomotor adaptation and no effect of dual-tasking on savings, regardless of age. Young adults maintain cognitive performance and show a mild decrement in locomotor adaptation, while late middle-aged adults adapt locomotion at the expense of cognitive performance.

Reward boosts reinforcement-based motor learning

Besides relying heavily on sensory and reinforcement feedback, motor skill learning may also depend on the level of motivation experienced during training. Yet, how motivation by reward modulates motor learning remains unclear. In 90 healthy subjects, we investigated the net effect of motivation by reward on motor learning while controlling for the sensory and reinforcement feedback received by the participants. Reward improved motor skill learning beyond performance-based reinforcement feedback. Importantly, the beneficial effect of reward involved a specific potentiation of reinforcement-related adjustments in motor commands, which concerned primarily the most relevant motor component for task success and persisted on the following day in the absence of reward. We propose that the long-lasting effects of motivation on motor learning may entail a form of associative learning resulting from the repetitive pairing of the reinforcement feedback and reward during training, a mechanism that may be exploited in future rehabilitation protocols.

Taking aim at the perceptual side of motor learning: exploring how explicit and implicit learning encode perceptual error information through depth vision

Motor learning in visuomotor adaptation tasks results from both explicit and implicit processes, each responding differently to an error signal. Although the motor output side of these processes has been extensively studied, the visual input side is relatively unknown. We investigated if and how depth perception affects the computation of error information by explicit and implicit motor learning. Two groups of participants made reaching movements to bring a virtual cursor to a target in the frontoparallel plane. The Delayed group was allowed to reaim and their feedback was delayed to emphasize explicit learning, whereas the camped group received task-irrelevant clamped cursor feedback and continued to aim straight at the target to emphasize implicit adaptation. Both groups played this game in a highly detailed virtual environment (depth condition), leveraging a cover task of playing darts in a virtual tavern, and in an empty environment (no-depth condition). The delayed group showed an increase in error sensitivity under depth relative to no-depth. In contrast, the clamped group adapted to the same degree under both conditions. The movement kinematics of the delayed participants also changed under the depth condition, consistent with the target appearing more distant, unlike the Clamped group. A comparison of the delayed behavioral data with a perceptual task from the same individuals showed that the greater reaiming in the depth condition was consistent with an increase in the scaling of the error distance and size. These findings suggest that explicit and implicit learning processes may rely on different sources of perceptual information.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We leveraged a classic sensorimotor adaptation task to perform a first systematic assessment of the role of perceptual cues in the estimation of an error signal in the 3-D space during motor learning. We crossed two conditions presenting different amounts of depth information, with two manipulations emphasizing explicit and implicit learning processes. Explicit learning responded to the visual conditions, consistent with perceptual reports, whereas implicit learning appeared to be independent of them.

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.

Hierarchical motor adaptations negotiate failures during force field learning

Humans have the amazing ability to learn the dynamics of the body and environment to develop motor skills. Traditional motor studies using arm reaching paradigms have viewed this ability as the process of ‘internal model adaptation’. However, the behaviors have not been fully explored in the case when reaches fail to attain the intended target. Here we examined human reaching under two force fields types; one that induces failures (i.e., target errors), and the other that does not. Our results show the presence of a distinct failure-driven adaptation process that enables quick task success after failures, and before completion of internal model adaptation, but that can result in persistent changes to the undisturbed trajectory. These behaviors can be explained by considering a hierarchical interaction between internal model adaptation and the failure-driven adaptation of reach direction. Our findings suggest that movement failure is negotiated using hierarchical motor adaptations by humans.

How do we improve actions after a movement failure? Although negotiating movement failures is obviously crucial, previous motor-control studies have predominantly examined human movement adaptations in the absence of failures, and it remains unclear how failures affect subsequent movement adaptations. Here we examined this issue by developing a novel force field adaptation task where the hand movement during an arm reaching is perturbed by novel forces that induce a large target error, that is a failure. Our experimental observation and computational modeling show that, in addition to the popular ‘internal model learning’ process of motor adaptations, humans also utilize a ‘failure-negotiating’ process, that enables them to quickly improve movements in the presence of failure, even at the expense of increased arm trajectory deflections, which are subsequently reduced gradually with training after the achievement of the task success. Our results suggest that a hierarchical interaction between these two processes is a key for humans to negotiate movement failures.

Fluid Cognitive Abilities Are Important for Learning and Retention of a New, Explicitly Learned Walking Pattern in Individuals After Stroke

BACKGROUND

There is significant variability in poststroke locomotor learning that is poorly understood and affects individual responses to rehabilitation interventions. Cognitive abilities relate to upper extremity motor learning in neurologically intact adults, but have not been studied in poststroke locomotor learning.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the relationship between locomotor learning and retention and cognition after stroke.

METHODS

Participants with chronic (>6 months) stroke participated in 3 testing sessions. During the first session, participants walked on a treadmill and learned a new walking pattern through visual feedback about their step length. During the second session, participants walked on a treadmill and 24-hour retention was assessed. Physical and cognitive tests, including the Fugl-Meyer-Lower Extremity (FM-LE), Fluid Cognition Composite Score (FCCS) from the NIH Toolbox -Cognition Battery, and Spatial Addition from the Wechsler Memory Scale-IV, were completed in the third session. Two sequential regression models were completed: one with learning and one with retention as the dependent variables. Age, physical impairment (ie, FM-LE), and cognitive measures (ie, FCCS and Spatial Addition) were the independent variables.

RESULTS

Forty-nine and 34 participants were included in the learning and retention models, respectively. After accounting for age and FM-LE, cognitive measures explained a significant portion of variability in learning (R² = 0.17, P = .008; overall model R² = 0.31, P = .002) and retention (ΔR² = 0.17, P = .023; overall model R² = 0.44, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive abilities appear to be an important factor for understanding locomotor learning and retention after stroke. This has significant implications for incorporating locomotor learning principles into the development of personalized rehabilitation interventions after stroke.

Learning a reach trajectory based on binary reward feedback

Binary reward feedback on movement success is sufficient for learning some simple sensorimotor mappings in a reaching task, but not for some other tasks in which multiple kinematic factors contribute to performance. The critical condition for learning in more complex tasks remains unclear. Here, we investigate whether reward-based motor learning is possible in a multi-dimensional trajectory matching task and whether simplifying the task by providing feedback on one factor at a time ('factorized feedback') can improve learning. In two experiments, participants performed a trajectory matching task in which learning was measured as a reduction in the error. In Experiment 1, participants matched a straight trajectory slanted in depth. We factorized the task by providing feedback on the slant error, the length error, or on their composite. In Experiment 2, participants matched a curved trajectory, also slanted in depth. In this experiment, we factorized the feedback by providing feedback on the slant error, the curvature error, or on the integral difference between the matched and target trajectory. In Experiment 1, there was anecdotal evidence that participants learnt the multidimensional task. Factorization did not improve learning. In Experiment 2, there was anecdotal evidence the multidimensional task could not be learnt. We conclude that, within a complexity range, multiple kinematic factors can be learnt in parallel.