Motor learning and prediction in a variable environment

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 232-237

  Davidson, Paul R ^a   Wolpert, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; CONTROL STRATEGY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HUMAN; JOINT FUNCTION; LEARNING; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION;

EID: 0038057801     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00038-2     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Takahashi C.D., Scheidt R.A., Reinkensmeyer D.J. Impedance control and internal model formation when reaching in a randomly varying dynamical environment. J. Neurophysiol. 86:2001;1047-1051.
2. Scheidt R.A., Dingwell J.B., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Learning to move amid uncertainty. J. Neurophysiol. 86:2001;971-985 During force-field learning, in which the force amplitude varied from movement to movement, subjects learned to prepare for the mean field experienced over the previous few movements. This implies that only short-term memory is used for motor adaptation. The same pattern was observed when the field amplitude for each trial was drawn from a strongly bimodal distribution.
3. Witney A.G., Vetter P., Wolpert D.M. The influence of previous experience on predictive motor control. Neuroreport. 12:2001;649-653.
4. Karniel A., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Does the motor control system use multiple models and context switching to cope with a variable environment? Exp. Brain Res. 143:2002;520-524 This paper investigates our ability to form, and then use, memories of multiple force fields. Subjects learned to reach in two force-fields that acted in opposite directions, perpendicular to the direction of hand movement. In the control condition, the fields alternated after every trial and very little learning was observed. On the following day, the subjects returned and learned the rightward field only. Twenty-four hours later they returned and learned to reach in the leftward field. Then, after 24 h, subjects were re-tested with alternating fields as in the control condition. Despite this, subjects were unable use their knowledge of the two force fields to improve their performance in the alternating condition.
5. Bhushan N., Shadmehr R. Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields. Biol. Cybern. 81:1999;39-60.
6. Wigmore V., Tong C., Flanagan J.R. Visuomotor rotations of varying size and direction compete for a single internal model in motor working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28:2002;447-457 This study shows that multiple visuomotor rotations compete for the same working memory resources. Subjects learned a -30° rotation followed immediately by second rotation of either +30°, +60° or -60°. The following day they were re-tested on the original -30° rotation. Performance on the second day was consistent with subjects having consolidated the second rotation, with little memory of the rotation first experienced.
7. Thoroughman K.A., Shadmehr R. Electromyographic correlates of learning an internal model of reaching movements. J. Neurosci. 19:1999;8573-8588.
8. Cohn J.V., DiZio P., Lackner J.R. Reaching during virtual rotation: context specific compensations for expected coriolis forces. J. Neurophysiol. 83:2000;3230-3240.
9. Wang T., Dordevic G.S., Shadmehr R. Learning the dynamics of reaching movements results in the modification of arm impedance and long-latency perturbation responses. Biol. Cybern. 85:2001;437-448 The authors show that when learning to make arm movements in a novel force field, the sensorimotor feedback pathway is modified in parallel with the feed-forward pathway. A non-linear approach is used to approximate the impedance of the arm. The authors note that the hand impedance alters after subjects learn a new field and appears to be tuned specifically to counter the effects of the new field.
10. Nezafat R., Shadmehr R., Holcomb H.H. Long-term adaptation to dynamics of reaching movements: a PET study. Exp. Brain Res. 140:2001;66-76.
11. Dingwell J.B., Mah C.D., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Manipulating objects with internal degrees of freedom: evidence for model-based control. J. Neurophysiol. 88:2002;222-235.
12. Rancourt D., Hogan N. Stability in force-production tasks. J. Mot. Behav. 33:2001;193-204.
13. Burdet E., Osu R., Franklin D.W., Milner T.E., Kawato M. The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature. 414:2001;446-449 The authors show that subjects adapt to an unstable force field by increasing the stiffness of their arm selectively in the direction of instability. This approach is more energy efficient than a generalised increase in limb stiffness.
14. Krakauer J.W., Ghilardi M.F., Ghez C. Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat. Neurosci. 2:1999;1026-1031.
15. ••], the authors show that a dynamic field can interfere with consolidation of a visuomotor rotation in some circumstances. Subjects learned a visuomotor rotation followed by a position-dependant rotary force field. Subjects were then re-tested on the same visuomotor rotation on the following day when their performance was impaired compared to the control group.
16. Ariff G., Donchin O., Nanayakkara T., Shadmehr R. A real-time state predictor in motor control: study of saccadic eye movements during unseen reaching movements. J. Neurosci. 22:2002;7721-7729.
17. Flanagan J.R., Lolley S. The inertial anisotropy of the arm is accurately predicted during movement planning. J. Neurosci. 21:2001;1361-1369 The authors show that the CNS accurately predicts direction-dependant changes in hand acceleration caused by the anisotropic inertia of the arm. Subjects slide an object across a frictionless surface to radially located targets. The force they apply to the object is accurately coordinated in anticipation of changes in tangential force caused by hand acceleration. The normal force remains accurate across movement directions and arm postures.
18. McIntyre J., Zago M., Berthoz A., Lacquaniti F. Does the brain model Newton's laws? Nat. Neurosci. 4:2001;693-694.
19. Mehta B., Schaal S. Forward models in visuomotor control. J. Neurophysiol. 88:2002;942-953.
20. Sommer M.A., Wurtz R.H. A pathway in primate brain for internal monitoring of movements. Science. 296:2002;1480-1482 The authors of this paper use a double saccade task to identify a possible pathway for corollary discharge, or efference copy, in the brain. The pathway leads from the superior colliculus to the frontal eye fields via the mediodorsal thalamus (MD), and was shown to carry information that correlated with the motor command for saccadic eye movement. Importantly, interruption of the pathway caused deficits consistent with the loss of corollary discharge: the pathway appears to carry information about a movement but is not directly involved in generating that movement.
21. Brashers-Krug T., Shadmehr R., Bizzo E. Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature. 382:1996;252-255.
22. Shadmehr R., Brashers-Krug T. Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. J. Neurosci. 17:1997;409-419.
23. Walker M.P., Brakefield T., Morgan A., Hobson J.A., Stickgold R. Practice with sleep makes perfect: sleep-dependent motor skill learning. Neuron. 35:2002;205-211 After learning a five-key-press movement sequence, a 20% increase in speed without loss of accuracy was observed after a night of sleep. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in speed after the same period spent awake. Hence, this paper provides evidence that sleep facilitates motor-sequence learning. Improved performance strongly correlated with the amount of late non-REM sleep obtained by the subjects.
24. Stickgold R., Hobson J.A., Fosse R., Fosse M. Sleep, learning, and dreams: off-line memory reprocessing. Science. 294:2001;1052-1057.
25. Fischer S., Hallschmid M., Elsner A.L., Born J. Sleep forms memory for finger skills. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA. 99:2002;11987-11991.
26. Maquet P. The role of sleep in learning and memory. Science. 294:2001;1048-1052.
27. Donchin O., Sawaki L., Madupu G., Cohen L.G., Shadmehr R. Mechanisms influencing acquisition and recall of motor memories. J. Neurophysiol. 88:2002;2114-2123.
28. Muellbacher W., Ziemann U., Boroojerdi B., Cohen L., Hallett M. Role of the human motor cortex in rapid motor learning. Exp. Brain Res. 136:2001;431-438.
29. Muellbacher W., Ziemann U., Wissel J., Dang N., Kofler M., Facchini S., Boroojerdi B., Poewe W., Hallett M. Early consolidation in human primary motor cortex. Nature. 415:2002;640-644.
30. Goedert K.M., Willingham D.B. Patterns of interference in sequence learning and prism adaptation inconsistent with the consolidation hypothesis. Learn. Mem. 9:2002;279-292.
31. Ghilardi M., Ghez C., Dhawan V., Moeller J., Mentis M., Nakamura T., Antonini A., Eidelberg D. Patterns of regional brain activation associated with different forms of motor learning. Brain Res. 871:2000;127-145.
32. Sainburg R.L. Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp. Brain Res. 142:2002;241-258.
33. Criscimagna-Hemminger S.E., Donchin O., Shadmehr R. Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to non-dominant arm. J. Neurophysiol. 89:2003;168-176.
34. Richardson M.J., Flash T. Comparing smooth arm movements with the two-thirds power law and the related segmented-control hypothesis. J. Neurosci. 22:2002;8201-8211.
35. Harris C.M., Wolpert D.M. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 394:1998;780-784. [See also 'News and Views' pages 725-726.].
36. Kitazawa S. Optimization of goal-directed movements in the cerebellum: a random walk hypothesis. Neurosci. Res. 43:2002;289-294.
37. Todorov E., Jordan M.I. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat. Neurosci. 5:2002;1226-1235 Here, the authors propose a comprehensive theory of coordination that is based on a stochastic optimal feedback control framework. The authors demonstrate that the optimal control strategy in the face of uncertainty is to allow variability in redundant dimensions to go uncorrected. Only the deviations that actually interfere with task goals are actively corrected. Experimental results from a wide variety of tasks are also presented in support of their theory.