MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396885856 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48008-7

De novo motor learning creates structure in neural activity that shapes adaptation

2024· article· en· W4396885856 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna Chang, Matthew G. Perich, Lee E. Miller, Juan Álvaro Gallego, Claudia Clopath

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthSimons FoundationResearch Councils UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Artificial neural networkMotor learningNeural adaptationPopulationComputer scienceRepertoireNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceNeural activityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals can quickly adapt learned movements to external perturbations, and their existing motor repertoire likely influences their ease of adaptation. Long-term learning causes lasting changes in neural connectivity, which shapes the activity patterns that can be produced during adaptation. Here, we examined how a neural population's existing activity patterns, acquired through de novo learning, affect subsequent adaptation by modeling motor cortical neural population dynamics with recurrent neural networks. We trained networks on different motor repertoires comprising varying numbers of movements, which they acquired following various learning experiences. Networks with multiple movements had more constrained and robust dynamics, which were associated with more defined neural 'structure'-organization in the available population activity patterns. This structure facilitated adaptation, but only when the changes imposed by the perturbation were congruent with the organization of the inputs and the structure in neural activity acquired during de novo learning. These results highlight trade-offs in skill acquisition and demonstrate how different learning experiences can shape the geometrical properties of neural population activity and 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207