Context-Dependent Decay of Motor Memories during Skill Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current models of motor learning posit that skill acquisition involves both the formation and decay of multiple motor memories that can be engaged in different contexts. Memory formation is assumed to be context dependent, so that errors most strongly update motor memories associated with the current context. In contrast, memory decay is assumed to be context independent, so that movement in any context leads to uniform decay across all contexts. We demonstrate that for both object manipulation and force-field adaptation, contrary to previous models, memory decay is highly context dependent. We show that the decay of memory associated with a given context is greatest for movements made in that context, with more distant contexts showing markedly reduced decay. Thus, both memory formation and decay are strongest for the current context. We propose that this apparently paradoxical organization provides a mechanism for optimizing performance. While memory decay tends to reduce force output, memory formation can correct for any errors that arise, allowing the motor system to regulate force output so as to both minimize errors and avoid unnecessary energy expenditure. The motor commands for any given context thus result from a balance between memory formation and decay, while memories for other contexts are preserved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".