Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30496208›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Adaptive coupling influences generalization of sensorimotor learning.

Mohsen Sadeghi, James N Ingram, Daniel M Wolpert

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mohsen SadeghiDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2573-146X
James N IngramDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Daniel M WolpertDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust WT097803MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensorimotor learning typically shows generalization from one context to another. Models of sensorimotor learning characterize this with a fixed generalization function that couples learning between contexts. Here we examine whether such coupling is indeed fixed or changes with experience. We examine the interaction between motor memories for novel dynamics during reciprocating, back and forth reaching movements. Subjects first experienced a force field for one movement direction and we used channel trials to assess generalization on the reciprocal movements. This showed minimal coupling such that errors experienced for one movement direction did not lead to adaptation for the other. However, after subjects had experienced a force field for both movement directions concurrently, a coupling developed between the corresponding motor memories. That is, on re-exposure for one direction there was a significant adaptation for movements in the other direction. The coupling was specific to the errors experienced, with minimal coupling when the errors had the opposite sign to those experienced during adaptation. We developed a state-space model in which the states for the two movement directions are represented by separate, yet potentially coupled learning processes. The coupling in the model controlled the extent to which each learning process was updated by the errors experienced on the other movement direction. We show that the coupling relies on a memory trace of the consecutive errors experienced for both movement directions. Our results suggest that the generalization of motor learning is an adaptive process, reflecting the relation between errors experienced across different movements.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAdultFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansLearningMaleMemoryMotor Skills

Identifiers

PMID30496208
PMCPMC6264158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.