The effects of prior exposure to prism lenses on de novo motor skill learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor learning involves plasticity in a network of brain areas across the cortex and cerebellum. Such traces of learning have the potential to affect subsequent learning of other tasks. In some cases, prior learning can interfere with subsequent learning, but it may be possible to potentiate learning of one task with a prior task if they are sufficiently different. Because prism adaptation involves extensive neuroplasticity, we reasoned that the elevated excitability of neurons could increase their readiness to undergo structural changes, and in turn, create an optimal state for learning a subsequent task. We tested this idea, selecting two different forms of learning tasks, asking whether exposure to a sensorimotor adaptation task can improve subsequent de novo motor skill learning. Participants first learned a new visuomotor mapping induced by prism glasses in which prism strength varied trial-to-trial. Immediately after and the next day, we tested participants on a mirror tracing task, a form of de novo skill learning. Prism-trained and control participants both learned the mirror tracing task, with similar reductions in error and increases in distance traced. Both groups also showed evidence of offline performance gains between the end of day 1 and the start of day 2. However, we did not detect differences between groups. Overall, our results do not support the idea that prism adaptation learning can potentiate subsequent de novo learning. We discuss factors that may have contributed to this result.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".