Reach adaption to a visuomotor gain with terminal error feedback involves reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor adaptation can be achieved through error-based learning, driven by sensory prediction errors, or reinforcement learning, driven by reward prediction errors. Recent work on visuomotor adaptation has shown that reinforcement learning leads to more persistent adaptation when visual feedback is removed, compared to error-based learning in which continuous visual feedback of the movement is provided. However, there is evidence that error-based learning with terminal visual feedback of the movement (provided at the end of movement) may be driven by both sensory and reward prediction errors. Here we examined the influence of feedback on learning using a visuomotor adaptation task in which participants moved a cursor to a single target while the gain between hand and cursor movement displacement was gradually altered. Different groups received either continuous error feedback (EC), terminal error feedback (ET), or binary reinforcement feedback (success/fail) at the end of the movement (R). Following adaptation we tested generalization to targets located in different directions and found that generalization in the ET group was intermediate between the EC and R groups. We then examined the persistence of adaptation in the EC and ET groups when the cursor was extinguished and only binary reward feedback was provided. Whereas performance was maintained in the ET group, it quickly deteriorated in the EC group. These results suggest that terminal error feedback leads to a more robust form of learning than continuous error feedback. In addition our findings are consistent with the view that error-based learning with terminal feedback involves both error-based and reinforcement learning.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".