ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2019
Minimizing Precision-Weighted Sensory Prediction Errors via Memory Formation and Switching in Motor Adaptation.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- The decay and consolidation of effector-independent motor memories.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- The Efficiency, Efficacy, and Retention of Task Practice in Chronic Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2020Trial
- Neurorehabilitation in the 21st Century: New Science, New Strategies, New Expectations.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Review
- A neural mechanism for online discovery of latent contexts.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Explaining human motor coordination via the synergy expansion hypothesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- What can ANS signals tell us about motor learning? An implication for better assessment of cognitive contribution to motor learning.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Initial development of skill with a reversed bicycle and a case series of experienced riders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fast adaptation to rule switching using neuronal surprise.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Movement-goal relevant object shape properties act as poor but viable cues for the attribution of motor errors to external objects.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Computational and Neural Bases of Context-Dependent Learning.Annual review of neuroscience · 2023Review
- Article
- Remembrance of things perceived: Adding thalamocortical function to artificial neural networks.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Review
- Contextual inference in learning and memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2023Review
- Hypothalamic Control of Forelimb Motor Adaptation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- The Effects of Sensory Threshold Somatosensory Electrical Stimulation on Users With Different MI-BCI Performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Continuous Head Motion is a Greater Motor Control Challenge than Transient Head Motion in Patients with Loss of Vestibular Function.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2021Article
- Reexposure to a sensorimotor perturbation produces opposite effects on explicit and implicit learning processes.PLoS biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Humans predict the sensory consequences of motor commands by learning internal models of the body and of environment perturbations. When facing a sensory prediction error, should we attribute this error to a change in our body, and update the body internal model, or to a change in the environment? In the latter case, should we update an existing perturbation model or create a new model? Here, we propose that a decision-making process compares the models' prediction errors, weighted by their precisions, to select and update either the body model or an existing perturbation model. When no model can predict a perturbation, a new perturbation model is created and selected. When a model is selected, both the prediction's mean estimate and uncertainty are updated to minimize future prediction errors and to increase the precision of the predictions. Results from computer simulations, which we verified in an arm visuomotor adaptation experiment with subjects of both sexes, account for short aftereffects and large savings after adaptation to large, but not small, perturbations. Results also clarify previous data in the absence of errors (error-clamp): motor memories show an initial lack of decay after a large perturbation, but gradual decay after a small perturbation. Finally, qualitative individual differences in adaptation were explained by subjects selecting and updating either the body model or a perturbation model. Our results suggest that motor adaptation belongs to a general class of learning according to which memories are created when no existing memories can predict sensory data accurately and precisely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.