Consolidation of visuomotor adaptation memory with consistent and noisy environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of how we learn and retain motor behaviors is still limited. For instance, there is conflicting evidence as to whether the memory of a learned visuomotor perturbation consolidates; i.e., the motor memory becomes resistant to interference from learning a competing perturbation over time. Here, we sought to determine the factors that influence consolidation during visually guided walking. Subjects learned a novel mapping relationship, created by prism lenses, between the perceived location of two targets and the motor commands necessary to direct the feet to their positions. Subjects relearned this mapping 1 wk later. Different groups experienced protocols with or without a competing mapping (and with and without washout trials), presented either on the same day as initial learning or before relearning on day 2 We tested identical protocols under constant and noisy mapping structures. In the latter, we varied, on a trial-by-trial basis, the strength of prism lenses around a non-zero mean. We found that a novel visuomotor mapping is retained at least 1 wk after initial learning. We also found reduced foot-placement error with relearning in constant and noisy mapping groups, despite learning a competing mapping beforehand, and with the exception of one protocol, with and without washout trials. Exposure to noisy mappings led to similar performance on relearning compared with the equivalent constant mapping groups for most protocols. Overall, our results support the idea of motor memory consolidation during visually guided walking and suggest that constant and noisy practices are effective for motor learning. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: The adaptation of movement is essential for many daily activities. To interact with targets, this often requires learning the mapping to produce appropriate motor commands based on visual input. Here, we show that a novel visuomotor mapping is retained 1 wk after initial learning in a visually guided walking task. Furthermore, we find that this motor memory consolidates (i.e., becomes more resistant to interference from learning a competing mapping) when learning in constant and noisy mapping environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".