Failure to Consolidate the Consolidation Theory of Learning for Sensorimotor Adaptation Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An influential idea in human motor learning is that there is a consolidation period during which motor memories are transformed from a fragile to a permanent state, no longer susceptible to interference from new learning. The evidence supporting this idea comes from studies showing that the motor memory of a task (A) is lost when an opposing task (B) is experienced soon after, but not if sufficient time is allowed to pass (approximately 6 hr). We report results from three laboratories challenging this consolidation idea. We used an ABA paradigm in the context of a reaching task to assess the influence of experiencing B after A on the retention of A. In two experiments using visuomotor rotations, we found that B fully interferes with the retention of A even when B is experienced 24 hr after A. Contrary to previous reports, in four experiments on learning force fields, we also observed full interference between A and B when they are separated by 24 hr or even 1 week. This latter result holds for both position-dependent and velocity-dependent force fields. For both the visuomotor and force-field tasks, complete interference is still observed when the possible affects of anterograde interference are controlled through the use of washout trials. Our results fail to support the idea that motor memories become consolidated into a protected state. Rather, they are consistent with recent ideas of memory formation, which propose that memories can shift between active and inactive states.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".