Neural Signatures of Reward and Sensory Prediction Error in Motor Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At least two distinct processes have been identified by which motor commands are adapted according to movement-related feedback: reward based learning and sensory error based learning. In sensory error based learning, mappings between sensory targets and motor commands are recalibrated according to sensory error feedback. In reward based learning, motor commands are associated with subjective value, such that successful actions are reinforced. We designed two tasks to isolate reward and sensory error based motor adaptation, and recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from humans to identify and dissociate the neural correlates of reward and sensory error processing. We designed a visuomotor rotation task to isolate sensory error based learning which was induced by altered visual feedback of hand position. In a reward learning task, we isolated reward based learning induced by binary reward feedback that was decoupled from the visual target. We found that a fronto-central event related potential called the feedback related negativity (FRN) was elicited specifically by reward feedback but not sensory error feedback. A more posterior component called the P300 was evoked by feedback in both tasks. In the visuomotor rotation task, P300 amplitude was increased by sensory error induced by perturbed visual feedback, and was correlated with learning rate. In the reward learning task, P300 amplitude was increased by reward relative to non reward and by surprise regardless of feedback valence. We propose that during motor adaptation, the FRN might specifically mark reward prediction error while the P300 might reflect processing which is modulated more generally by prediction error. New and Noteworthy We studied the event related potentials evoked by feedback stimuli during motor adaptation tasks that isolate reward and sensory error learning mechanisms. We found that the feedback related negativity was specifically elicited by reward feedback, while the P300 was observed in both tasks. These results reveal neural processes associated with different learning mechanisms and elucidate which classes of errors, from a computational standpoint, elicit the FRN and P300.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".