Human variation in error-based and reinforcement motor learning is associated with entorhinal volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Error-based and reward-based processes are critical for motor learning and are thought to be mediated via distinct neural pathways. However, recent behavioral work in humans suggests that both learning processes can be bolstered by the use of cognitive strategies, which may mediate individual differences in motor learning ability. It has been speculated that medial temporal lobe regions, which have been shown to support motor sequence learning, also support the use of cognitive strategies in error-based and reinforcement motor learning. However, direct evidence in support of this idea remains sparse. Here we first show that better overall learning during error-based visuomotor adaptation is associated with better overall learning during the reward-based shaping of reaching movements. Given the cognitive contribution to learning in both of these tasks, these results support the notion that strategic processes, associated with better performance, drive intersubject variation in both error-based and reinforcement motor learning. Furthermore, we show that entorhinal cortex volume is larger in better learning individuals-characterized across both motor learning tasks-compared with their poorer learning counterparts. These results suggest that individual differences in learning performance during error and reinforcement learning are related to neuroanatomical differences in entorhinal cortex.
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".