MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898473420 · doi:10.1152/jn.00442.2018

Somatosensory working memory in human reinforcement-based motor learning

2018· article· en· W2898473420 on OpenAlexafffund
Ananda Sidarta, Floris T. van Vugt, David J. Ostry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsWorking memoryPsychologyTask (project management)Somatosensory systemMotor learningCognitive psychologyMotor skillReinforcementReinforcement learningCognitionNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies using visuomotor adaptation and sequence learning tasks have assessed the involvement of working memory in the visuospatial domain. The capacity to maintain previously performed movements in working memory is perhaps even more important in reinforcement-based learning to repeat accurate movements and avoid mistakes. Using this kind of task in the present work, we tested the relationship between somatosensory working memory and motor learning. The first experiment involved separate memory and motor learning tasks. In the memory task, the participant's arm was displaced in different directions by a robotic arm, and the participant was asked to judge whether a subsequent test direction was one of the previously presented directions. In the motor learning task, participants made reaching movements to a hidden visual target and were provided with positive feedback as reinforcement when the movement ended in the target zone. It was found that participants that had better somatosensory working memory showed greater motor learning. In a second experiment, we designed a new task in which learning and working memory trials were interleaved, allowing us to study participants' memory for movements they performed as part of learning. As in the first experiment, we found that participants with better somatosensory working memory also learned more. Moreover, memory performance for successful movements was better than for movements that failed to reach the target. These results suggest that somatosensory working memory is involved in reinforcement motor learning and that this memory preferentially keeps track of reinforced movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The present work examined somatosensory working memory in reinforcement-based motor learning. Working memory performance was reliably correlated with the extent of learning. With the use of a paradigm in which learning and memory trials were interleaved, memory was assessed for movements performed during learning. Movements that received positive feedback were better remembered than movements that did not. Thus working memory does not track all movements equally but is biased to retain movements that were rewarded.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207