Both fast and slow learning processes contribute to savings following sensorimotor adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work suggests that the rate of learning in sensorimotor adaptation is likely not fixed, but rather can change based on previous experience. One example is savings, a commonly observed phenomenon whereby the relearning of a motor skill is faster than the initial learning. Sensorimotor adaptation is thought to be driven by sensory prediction errors, which are the result of a mismatch between predicted and actual sensory consequences. It has been proposed that during motor adaptation the generation of sensory prediction errors engages two processes (fast and slow) that differ in learning and retention rates. We tested the idea that a history of errors would influence both the fast and slow processes during savings. Participants were asked to perform the same force field adaptation task twice in succession. We found that adaptation to the force field a second time led to increases in estimated learning rates for both fast and slow processes. While it has been proposed that savings is explained by an increase in learning rate for the fast process, here we observed that the slow process also contributes to savings. Our work suggests that fast and slow adaptation processes are both responsive to a history of error and both contribute to savings. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We studied the underlying mechanisms of savings during motor adaptation. Using a two-state model to represent fast and slow processes that contribute to motor adaptation, we found that a history of error modulates performance in both processes. While previous research has attributed savings to only changes in the fast process, we demonstrated that an increase in both processes is needed to account for the measured behavioral data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".