Adapting to visuomotor rotations in stepped increments increases implicit motor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Human motor adaptation relies on both explicit conscious strategies and implicit unconscious updating of internal models to correct motor errors. Implicit adaptation is powerful, requiring less preparation time before executing adapted movements, but recent work suggests it is limited to some absolute magnitude regardless of the size of a visuomotor perturbation when the perturbation is introduced abruptly. It is commonly assumed that gradually introducing a perturbation should lead to improved implicit learning beyond this limit, but outcomes are conflicting. We tested whether introducing a perturbation in two distinct gradual methods can overcome the apparent limit and explain past conflicting findings. We found that gradually introducing a perturbation in a stepped manner, where participants were given time to adapt to each partial step before being introduced to a larger partial step, led to ∼80% higher implicit aftereffects of learning, but introducing it in a ramped manner, where participants adapted larger rotations on each subsequent reach, did not. Our results clearly show that gradual introduction of a perturbation can lead to substantially larger implicit adaptation, as well as identify the type of introduction that is necessary to do so.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".