Factors Impacting the Time Course of Visuomotor Reach Adaptation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reaching with altered visual feedback leads to adaptation of internal motor plans, which result in aftereffects, deviated reaching without visual feedback, and proprioceptive recalibration, a shift in perceived hand location (Cressman & Henriques, 2010). However, the rate or speed by which these implicit motor and sensory changes emerge and how this timecourse may be affected by the quality of the feedback during training has yet to be investigated. In a series of experiments, I looked at the speed and size of implicit changes, specifically reach aftereffects and shifts in felt hand position, how fast they emerge and how they vary as a function of the quality of error signals and certainty of the rotation during training. In the first experiment, participants had full access to error signals during training with altered visual feedback of their hand, and during this training, reach aftereffects, and active and passive hand localizations were measured after every single reach-training trial. This gave us a baseline of how fast these implicit components shifted during ‘classic’ training. Shifts in felt hand position reached saturation within one trial and reach aftereffects also reached saturation within three trials of visuomotor rotation training which is much faster than previously believed. In the second experiment we reduced error signal information during training by removing the hand cursor until the reach movement was complete or by constraining hand movements along a channel, so the cursor always went straight to the target. The goal was to investigate if and to what extent these error signals affected the timecourse of proprioceptive recalibration. Despite this reduction, we could not detect a decrease in the rate or size of shifts in felt hand position, indicating the robustness and invariance of these visually-induced changes in proprioceptive estimates. In the third and final experiment, we reduced certainty in the rotation by changing it every 12 trials and still measured estimates of felt hand position on a trial-by-trial basis. We once again found shifts in felt hand position in the expected size and direction that peaked just as fast as the previous experiments, indicating that proprioceptive recalibration is a consistent aspect of reach adaptation to altered visual feedback. The rapid speed by which saturation is attained may also suggest that shifts in proprioceptive recalibration may be a driving factor in reach adaptation, as it saturates far earlier than adaptation does.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».