Individual variability in sensorimotor learning reflects trait-like neurobehavioral subject factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of Human motor behaviour often emphasize the computations performed by the motor system during learning. Yet, there is an emerging consensus that the learning of even simple motor actions can be augmented by sophisticated cognitive strategies, which rely upon executive functions implemented throughout the cortex. These executive functions, in turn, have been linked to stable subject differences in intrinsic brain organization function, observable even during rest. Here we show, using behavioural studies in humans, that individual differences in the rate of sensorimotor adaptation are linked to differences in executive function, as assessed using the classic trail-making task. Secondly, using separate train and test functional MRI datasets, we show that specific patterns of resting-state functional connectivity between higher-order cognitive brain networks, which have been previously linked to executive function, subsequently predict more rapid learning during sensorimotor adaptation. Importantly, this relationship was unique to cognitive brain networks, as the functional connectivity between sensorimotor brain networks did not predict subsequent motor learning performance. Together, these findings suggest that individual differences in motor learning reflect, to a substantial degree, trait-like subject differences in cognitive brain network structure. This perspective invites broader consideration as to the origins of motor learning ability, and links motor performance to an expansive literature implicating the coordinated functioning of the default mode, ventral attention, and frontoparietal networks in flexible behavioral control.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".