A rapid visuomotor response on the human upper limb is selectively influenced by implicit motor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do humans learn to adapt their motor actions to achieve task success? Recent behavioral and patient studies have challenged the classic notion that motor learning arises solely from the errors produced during a task, suggesting instead that explicit cognitive strategies can act in concert with the implicit, error-based, motor learning component. In this study, we show that the earliest wave of directionally tuned neuromuscular activity that begins within ~100 ms of peripheral visual stimulus onset is selectively influenced by the implicit component of motor learning. In contrast, the voluntary neuromuscular activity associated with reach initiation, which evolves ~100-200 ms later, is influenced by both the implicit and explicit components of motor learning. The selective influence of the implicit, but not explicit, component of motor learning on the directional tuning of the earliest cascade of neuromuscular activity supports the notion that these components of motor learning can differentially influence descending motor pathways. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor learning can be driven both by an implicit error-based component and an explicit strategic component, but the influence of these components on the descending pathways that contribute to motor control is unknown. In this study, we show that the implicit component selectively influences a reflexive circuit that rapidly generates a visuomotor response on the human upper limb. Our results show that the substrates mediating implicit and explicit motor learning exert distinct influences on descending motor pathways.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".