Motor learning and transfer: from feedback to feedforward control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous work has demonstrated that when learning a new motor task, the nervous system modifies feedforward (ie. voluntary) motor commands and that such learning transfers to fast feedback (ie. reflex) responses evoked by mechanical perturbations. Here we show the inverse, that learning new feedback responses transfers to feedforward motor commands. Sixty human participants (34 females) used a robotic exoskeleton and either 1) received short duration mechanical perturbations (20 ms) that created pure elbow rotation or 2) generated self-initiated pure elbow rotations. They did so with the shoulder joint free to rotate (normal arm dynamics) or locked (altered arm dynamics) by the robotic manipulandum. With the shoulder unlocked, the perturbation evoked clear shoulder muscle activity in the long-latency stretch reflex epoch (50-100ms post-perturbation), as required for countering the imposed joint torques, but little muscle activity thereafter in the so-called voluntary response. After locking the shoulder joint, which alters the required joint torques to counter pure elbow rotation, we found a reliable reduction in the long-latency stretch reflex over many trials. This reduction transferred to feedforward control as we observed 1) a reduction in shoulder muscle activity during self-initiated pure elbow rotation trials and 2) kinematic errors (ie. aftereffects) in the direction predicted when failing to compensate for normal arm dynamics, even though participants never practiced self-initiated movements with the shoulder locked. Taken together, our work shows that transfer between feedforward and feedback control is bidirectional, furthering the notion that these processes share common neural circuits that underlie motor learning and transfer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".