Dorsomedial frontal cortex damage impairs error-based, but not reinforcement-based motor learning in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We adapt our movements to new and changing environments through multiple processes. Sensory error-based learning counteracts environmental perturbations that affect the sensory consequences of movements. Sensory errors also cause the upregulation of reflexes and muscle co-contraction. Reinforcement-based learning enhances the selection of movements that produce rewarding outcomes. Although some findings have identified dissociable neural substrates of sensory error- and reinforcement-based learning, correlative methods have implicated dorsomedial frontal cortex in both. Here, we tested the causal contributions of dorsomedial frontal to adaptive motor control, studying people with chronic damage to this region. Seven human participants with focal brain lesions affecting the dorsomedial frontal and 20 controls performed a battery of arm movement tasks. Three experiments tested: (i) the upregulation of visuomotor reflexes and muscle co-contraction in response to unpredictable mechanical perturbations, (ii) sensory error-based learning in which participants learned to compensate predictively for mechanical force-field perturbations, and (iii) reinforcement-based motor learning based on binary feedback in the absence of sensory error feedback. Participants with dorsomedial frontal damage were impaired in the early stages of force field adaptation, but performed similarly to controls in all other measures. These results provide evidence for a specific and selective causal role for the dorsomedial frontal in sensory error-based 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".