Sequence learning is driven by improvements in motor planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to perform complex sequences of movements quickly and accurately is critical for many motor skills. Although training improves performance in a large variety of motor sequence tasks, the precise mechanisms behind such improvements are poorly understood. Here we investigated the contribution of single-action selection, sequence preplanning, online planning, and motor execution to performance in a discrete sequence production task. Five visually presented numbers cued a sequence of five finger presses, which had to be executed as quickly and accurately as possible. To study how sequence planning influenced sequence production, we manipulated the amount of time that participants were given to prepare each sequence by using a forced-response paradigm. Over 4 days, participants were trained on 10 sequences and tested on 80 novel sequences. Our results revealed that participants became faster in selecting individual finger presses. They also preplanned three or four sequence items into the future, and the speed of preplanning improved for trained, but not for untrained, sequences. Because preplanning capacity remained limited, the remaining sequence elements had to be planned online during sequence execution, a process that also improved with sequence-specific training. Overall, our results support the view that motor sequence learning effects are best characterized by improvements in planning processes that occur both before and concurrently with motor execution. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Complex skills often require the production of sequential movements. Although practice improves performance, it remains unclear how these improvements are achieved. Our findings show that learning effects in a sequence production task can be attributed to an enhanced ability to plan upcoming movements. These results shed new light on planning processes in the context of movement sequences and have important implications for our understanding of the neural mechanisms that underlie skill acquisition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".