Motor adaptation does not differ when a perturbation is introduced abruptly or gradually
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT People continuously adapt their movements to ever-changing circumstances, and particularly in skills training and rehabilitation, it is crucial that we understand how to optimize implicit adaptation in order for these processes to require as little conscious effort as possible. Although it is generally assumed that the way to do this is by introducing perturbations gradually, the literature is ambivalent on the effectiveness of this approach. Here we test whether there are differences in motor performance when adapting to an abrupt compared to a ramped visuomotor rotation. Using a within-subjects design, we test this question under 3 different rotation sizes: 30°, 45°, and 60°, as well as in 3 different populations: younger adults, older adults, and patients with mild cerebellar ataxia. We find no significant differences in either the behavioural outcomes, or model fits, between abrupt and gradual learning across any of the different conditions. Neither age, nor cerebellar ataxia had any significant effect on motor adaptation either. These findings together indicate that motor adaptation is not modulated by introducing a perturbation abruptly compared to gradually, and is also unaffected by age or mild cerebellar ataxia.
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) | 0.002 | 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".