<i>De novo</i> motor learning creates structure in neural activity space that shapes adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Animals can quickly adapt learned movements in response to external perturbations. Motor adaptation is likely influenced by an animal’s existing movement repertoire, but the nature of this influence is unclear. Long-term learning causes lasting changes in neural connectivity which determine the activity patterns that can be produced. Here, we sought to understand how a neural population’s activity repertoire, acquired through long-term learning, affects short-term adaptation by modeling motor cortical neural population dynamics during de novo learning and subsequent adaptation using recurrent neural networks. We trained these networks on different motor repertoires comprising varying numbers of movements. Networks with multiple movements had more constrained and robust dynamics, which were associated with more defined neural ‘structure’—organization created by the neural population activity patterns corresponding to each movement. This structure facilitated adaptation, but only when small changes in motor output were required, and when the structure of the network inputs, the neural activity space, and the perturbation were congruent. These results highlight trade-offs in skill acquisition and demonstrate how prior experience and external cues during learning can shape the geometrical properties of neural population activity as well as subsequent adaptation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".