Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34465612›Full record

ArticleeNeuro

Savings in Human Force Field Learning Supported by Feedback Adaptation.

James Mathew, Philippe Lefèvre, Frederic Crevecoeur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

James MathewInstitute of Communication Technology, Electronics and Applied Mathematics, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-neuve 1348, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5315-5212
Philippe LefèvreInstitute of Communication Technology, Electronics and Applied Mathematics, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-neuve 1348, Belgium.
Frederic CrevecoeurInstitute of Communication Technology, Electronics and Applied Mathematics, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-neuve 1348, Belgium frederic.crevecoeur@uclouvain.be.ORCID 0000-0002-1147-1153

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Savings have been described as the ability of healthy humans to relearn a previously acquired motor skill faster than the first time, which in the context of motor adaptation suggests that the learning rate in the brain could be adjusted when a perturbation is recognized. Alternatively, it has been argued that apparent savings were the consequence of a distinct process that instead of reflecting a change in the learning rate, revealed an explicit re-aiming strategy. Based on recent evidence that feedback adaptation may be central to both planning and control, we hypothesized that this component could genuinely accelerate relearning in human adaptation to force fields (FFs) during reaching. Consistent with our hypothesis, we observed that on re-exposure to a previously learned FF, the very first movement performed by healthy volunteers in the relearning context was better adapted to the external disturbance, and this occurred without any anticipation or cognitive strategy because the relearning session was started unexpectedly. We conclude that feedback adaptation is a medium by which the nervous system can genuinely accelerate learning across movements.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalPsychomotor PerformanceFeedbackHumansLearningMovementadaptive feedback controlforce field adaptationreadaptationsavingssensorimotor controlsensorimotor learning

Identifiers

PMID34465612
PMCPMC8457419

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.