Distinct learning, retention, and generalization patterns in de novo learning versus motor adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People correct for movement errors when acquiring new motor skills (de novo learning) or adapting well-known movements (motor adaptation). While de novo learning establishes new control policies, adaptation modifies existing ones, and previous work have distinguished behavioral and underlying brain mechanisms for each motor learning type. However, it is still unclear whether learning in each type interferes with the other. In study 1, we use a within-subjects design where participants train with both 30° visuomotor rotation and mirror reversal perturbations, to compare adaptation and de novo learning respectively. We find no perturbation order effects, and find no evidence for differences in learning rates and asymptotes for both perturbations. Explicit instructions also provide an advantage during early learning in both perturbations. However, mirror reversal learning shows larger inter-participant variability and slower movement initiation. Furthermore, we only observe reach aftereffects following rotation training. In study 2, we incorporate the mirror reversal in a browser-based task, to investigate under-studied de novo learning mechanisms like retention and generalization. Learning persists across three or more days, substantially transfers to the untrained hand, and to targets on both sides of the mirror axis. Our results extend insights for distinguishing motor skill acquisition from adapting well-known movements.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".