ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Motor adaptation is reduced by symbolic compared to sensory feedback.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motor adaptation - the process of reducing motor errors through feedback and practice - is an essential feature of human competence, allowing us to move accurately in dynamic and novel environments. Adaptation typically results from sensory feedback, with most learning driven by visual and proprioceptive feedback that arises with the movement. In humans, motor adaptation can also be driven by symbolic feedback. In the present study, we examine how implicit and explicit components of motor adaptation are modulated by symbolic feedback. We conducted three reaching experiments involving over 400 human participants to compare sensory and symbolic feedback using a task in which both types of learning processes could be operative (Experiment 1) or tasks in which learning was expected to be limited to only an explicit process (Experiments 2 and 3). Adaptation with symbolic feedback was dominated by explicit strategy use, with minimal evidence of implicit recalibration. Even when matched in terms of information content, adaptation to rotational and mirror reversal perturbations was slower in response to symbolic feedback compared to sensory feedback. Our results suggest that the abstract and indirect nature of symbolic feedback disrupts strategic reasoning and/or refinement, deepening our understanding of how feedback type influences the mechanisms of sensorimotor learning.
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.