The effect of visual uncertainty on implicit motor adaptation.
cerebellum
error-based learning
sensorimotor adaptation
sensory integration
Journal
Journal of neurophysiology
ISSN: 1522-1598
Titre abrégé: J Neurophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2021
01 01 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
11
2020
medline:
29
10
2021
entrez:
25
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sensorimotor adaptation is influenced by both the size and variance of error information. In the present study, we varied visual uncertainty and error size in a factorial manner and evaluated their joint effect on adaptation, using a feedback method that avoids inherent limitations with standard visuomotor tasks. Uncertainty attenuated adaptation, but only when the error was small. This striking interaction highlights a novel constraint for models of sensorimotor adaptation. Sensorimotor adaptation is driven by sensory prediction errors, the difference between the predicted and actual feedback. When the position of the feedback is made uncertain, motor adaptation is attenuated. This effect, in the context of optimal sensory integration models, has been attributed to the motor system discounting noisy feedback and thus reducing the learning rate. In its simplest form, optimal integration predicts that uncertainty would result in reduced learning for all error sizes. However, these predictions remain untested since manipulations of error size in standard visuomotor tasks introduce confounds in the degree to which performance is influenced by other learning processes such as strategy use. Here, we used a novel visuomotor task that isolates the contribution of implicit adaptation, independent of error size. In two experiments, we varied feedback uncertainty and error size in a factorial manner. At odds with the basic predictions derived from the optimal integration theory, the results show that uncertainty attenuated learning only when the error size was small but had no effect when the error size was large. We discuss possible mechanisms that may account for this interaction, considering how uncertainty may interact with the relevance assigned to the error signal or how the output of the adaptation system in terms of recalibrating the sensorimotor map may be modified by uncertainty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33236937
doi: 10.1152/jn.00493.2020
pmc: PMC8087384
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12-22Subventions
Organisme : HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
ID : NS105839
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R35 NS116883
Pays : United States
Organisme : HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
ID : NS116883
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K12 HD055931
Pays : United States
Organisme : HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
ID : HD055931
Organisme : National Science Foundation (NSF)
ID : 1934650
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC017091
Pays : United States
Références
J Neurosci. 2015 Apr 1;35(13):5109-17
pubmed: 25834038
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Dec;19(4):906-17
pubmed: 20537562
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1392-404
pubmed: 17615136
Exp Brain Res. 2002 May;144(2):258-61
pubmed: 12012163
Nature. 2004 Jan 15;427(6971):244-7
pubmed: 14724638
J Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Jun;29(6):1061-1074
pubmed: 28195523
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Sep;108(6):1752-63
pubmed: 22773782
Front Comput Neurosci. 2010 May 11;4:11
pubmed: 20485466
J Neurosci. 2006 Apr 5;26(14):3642-5
pubmed: 16597717
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49373
pubmed: 23152899
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 29;8(8):e72741
pubmed: 24009702
PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943
pubmed: 17895984
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):425-32
pubmed: 20705502
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 20;10(4):e0123321
pubmed: 25894396
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Dec;11(12):1454-61
pubmed: 19011624
J Neurosci. 2020 Feb 12;40(7):1560-1570
pubmed: 31924610
J Mot Behav. 2001 Dec;33(4):401-12
pubmed: 11734414
PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Mar;7(3):e1001096
pubmed: 21390266
J Neurophysiol. 2020 Oct 1;124(4):1122-1130
pubmed: 32902347
J Neurosci. 2010 Nov 3;30(44):14817-23
pubmed: 21048140
J Neurosci. 2018 May 9;38(19):4521-4530
pubmed: 29650698
J Neurosci. 1995 Nov;15(11):7644-52
pubmed: 7472515
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0117178
pubmed: 25658822
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Feb;101(2):655-64
pubmed: 19019979
Commun Biol. 2018 Mar 22;1:19
pubmed: 30271906
J Neurosci. 2015 Jul 1;35(26):9568-79
pubmed: 26134640
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 1;116(40):20151-20157
pubmed: 31481617
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Apr;22(2):379-94
pubmed: 8934851
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Oct;114(4):2460-71
pubmed: 26311179
PLoS Biol. 2021 Mar 5;19(3):e3001147
pubmed: 33667219
Annu Rev Psychol. 2021 Jan 4;72:61-95
pubmed: 32976728
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2010;33:89-108
pubmed: 20367317
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
J Neurophysiol. 2016 Mar;115(3):1499-511
pubmed: 26792878
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
Neurobiol Aging. 2019 Aug;80:138-153
pubmed: 31170534
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
pubmed: 9176952
J Neurosci. 2014 Feb 19;34(8):3023-32
pubmed: 24553942
PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002210
pubmed: 21998574
J Vis. 2008 Apr 23;8(4):20.1-19
pubmed: 18484859
Curr Biol. 2002 May 14;12(10):834-7
pubmed: 12015120
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun 1;113(10):3836-49
pubmed: 25855690
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Aug;90(2):1235-44
pubmed: 12711711
J Neurophysiol. 2020 Jan 1;123(1):57-69
pubmed: 31721646
Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33
pubmed: 11807554
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jun 14;113(24):6797-802
pubmed: 27247404
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):1006-22
pubmed: 16846294