Sensitivity to Error During Visuomotor Adaptation is Similarly Modulated by Abrupt, Gradual and Random Perturbation Schedules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It has been suggested that sensorimotor adaptation involves at least two processes (i.e., fast and slow) that differ in retention and error sensitivity. Previous work has shown that repeated exposure to an abrupt force field perturbation results in greater error sensitivity for both the fast and slow processes. While this implies that the faster relearning is associated with increased error sensitivity, it remains unclear what aspects of prior experience modulate error sensitivity. In the present study, we manipulated the initial training using different perturbation schedules, thought to differentially affect fast and slow learning processes based on error magnitude, and then observed what effect prior learning had on subsequent adaptation. During initial training of a visuomotor rotation task, we exposed three groups of participants to either an abrupt, a gradual, or a random perturbation schedule. During a testing session, all three groups were subsequently exposed to an abrupt perturbation schedule. Comparing the two sessions of the control group who experienced repetition of the same perturbation, we found an increased error sensitivity for both processes. We found that the error sensitivity was increased for both the fast and slow processes, with no reliable changes in the retention, for both the gradual and structural learning groups when compared to the first session of the control group. We discuss the findings in the context of how fast and slow learning processes respond to a history of errors. New & Noteworthy We investigated what aspects of prior experience modulate error sensitivity, within the framework of a two-state model of short-term sensorimotor adaptation. We manipulated initial training on a visuomotor adaptation reaching task using specific perturbation schedules that are thought to differentially affect fast and slow learning processes, and we tested what effect these had on subsequent adaptation. We found that sensitivity to adaptation error was similarly modulated by abrupt, gradual, and random perturbation schedules.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".