The Intersection of Offline Learning and Rehabilitation

Age-Related Differences in Motor Skill Transfer with Brief Memory Reactivation

Motor memories can be strengthened through online practice and offline consolidation. Offline consolidation involves the stabilization of memory traces in post-practice periods. Following initial consolidation of a motor memory, subsequent practice of the motor skill can lead to reactivation and reconsolidation of the memory trace. The length of motor memory reactivation may influence motor learning outcomes; for example, brief, as opposed to long, practice of a previously learned motor skill appears to optimize intermanual transfer in healthy young adults. However, the influence of aging on reactivation-based motor learning has been scarcely explored. Here, the effects of brief and long motor memory reactivation schedules on the retention and intermanual transfer of a visuomotor tracing task are explored in healthy older adults. Forty older adults practiced a virtual star-tracing task either three ("brief reactivation") or ten ("long reactivation") times per session over a two-week period. Comparison with a previously reported group of younger adults revealed significant age-related differences in the effect of the motor memory reactivation schedule on the intermanual transfer of the motor task. In older adults, unlike younger adults, no significant between-group differences were found by practice condition in the speed, accuracy, or skill of intermanual task transfer. That is, motor task transfer in healthy younger, but not older, adults appears to benefit from brief memory reactivation. These results support the use of age-specific motor training approaches and may inform motor practice scheduling, with possible implications for physical rehabilitation, sport, and music.

Generalization of procedural motor sequence learning after a single practice trial

When humans begin learning new motor skills, they typically display early rapid performance improvements. It is not well understood how knowledge acquired during this early skill learning period generalizes to new, related skills. Here, we addressed this question by investigating factors influencing generalization of early learning from a skill A to a different, but related skill B. Early skill generalization was tested over four experiments (N = 2095). Subjects successively learned two related motor sequence skills (skills A and B) over different practice schedules. Skill A and B sequences shared ordinal (i.e., matching keypress locations), transitional (i.e., ordered keypress pairs), parsing rule (i.e., distinct sequence events like repeated keypresses that can be used as a breakpoint for segmenting the sequence into smaller units) structures, or possessed no structure similarities. Results showed generalization for shared parsing rule structure between skills A and B after only a single 10-second practice trial of skill A. Manipulating the initial practice exposure to skill A (1 to 12 trials) and inter-practice rest interval (0-30 s) between skills A and B had no impact on parsing rule structure generalization. Furthermore, this generalization was not explained by stronger sensorimotor mapping between individual keypress actions and their symbolic representations. In contrast, learning from skill A did not generalize to skill B during early learning when the sequences shared only ordinal or transitional structure features. These results document sequence structure that can be very rapidly generalized during initial learning to facilitate generalization of skill.

Applied strategies of neuroplasticity

Various levels of somatotopic organization are present throughout the human nervous system. However, this organization can change when needed based on environmental demands, a phenomenon known as neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity can occur when learning a new motor skill, adjusting to life after blindness, or following a stroke. Following an injury, these neuroplastic changes can be adaptive or maladaptive, and often occur regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. But not all movements produce neuroplasticity, nor do all rehabilitation interventions. Here, we focus on research regarding how to maximize adaptive neuroplasticity while also minimizing maladaptive plasticity, known as applied neuroplasticity. Emphasis is placed on research exploring how best to apply neuroplastic principles to training environments and rehabilitation protocols. By studying and applying these principles in research and clinical practice, it is hoped that learning of skills and regaining of function and independence can be optimized.

After 55 Years of Neurorehabilitation, What Is the Plan?

Neurological disorders often cause severe long-term disabilities with substantial activity limitations and participation restrictions such as community integration, family functioning, employment, social interaction and participation. Increasing understanding of brain functioning has opened new perspectives for more integrative interventions, boosting the intrinsic central nervous system neuroplastic capabilities in order to achieve efficient behavioral restitution. Neurorehabilitation must take into account the many aspects of the individual through a comprehensive analysis of actual and potential cognitive, behavioral, emotional and physical skills, while increasing awareness and understanding of the new self of the person being dealt with. The exclusive adoption by the rehabilitator of objective functional measures often overlooks the values and goals of the disabled person. Indeed, each individual has their own rhythm, unique life history and personality construct. In this challenging context, it is essential to deepen the assessment through subjective measures, which more adequately reflect the patient’s perspective in order to shape genuinely tailored instead of standardized neurorehabilitation approaches. In this overly complex panorama, where confounding and prognostic factors also strongly influence potential functional recovery, the healthcare community needs to rethink neurorehabilitation formats.

Does an interference task immediately after practice prevent memory consolidation of sequence-specific learning?

[Purpose] Learning of movement procedures (sequence learning) is essential in physical therapy. Studies have shown that sequence-specific learning may be integrated from an early stage. This study examines the effect of an interference task on the retention of sequence-specific learning. [Participants and Methods] Young adults were randomly divided into a control group and an interference task group, and two experiments were performed. In each experiment, the control group practiced task A in both the acquisition phase and the retention phase four to five hours later. The Interference group practiced task A in the acquisition phase followed by task B, which is similar to the interference task, and then performed task A in the retention phase four to five hours later. In Experiment 2, the amount of practice for task A in the practice phase was 25% of that in Experiment 1. [Results] Sequence-specific learning occurred in the early stages of practice. In particular, the performance of Experiment 1 reached the ceiling. The results of the retention test showed no significant interference effect due to similar tasks. [Conclusion] Implicit sequence-specific learning stabilizes performance early and is not affected by interference tasks.