Roles and interplay of reinforcement-based and error-based processes during reaching and gait in neurotypical adults and individuals with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a game of darts to neurorehabilitation, the ability to explore and fine tune our movements is critical for success. Past work has shown that exploratory motor behaviour in response to reinforcement (reward) feedback is closely linked with the basal ganglia, while movement corrections in response to error feedback is commonly attributed to the cerebellum. While our past work has shown these processes are dissociable during adaptation, it is unknown how they uniquely impact exploratory behaviour. Moreover, converging neuroanatomical evidence shows direct and indirect connections between the basal ganglia and cerebellum, suggesting that there is an interaction between reinforcement-based and error-based neural processes. Here we examine the unique roles and interaction between reinforcement-based and error-based processes on sensorimotor exploration in a neurotypical population. We also recruited individuals with Parkinson's disease to gain mechanistic insight into the role of the basal ganglia and associated reinforcement pathways in sensorimotor exploration. Across three reaching experiments, participants were given either reinforcement feedback, error feedback, or simultaneously both reinforcement & error feedback during a sensorimotor task that encouraged exploration. Our reaching results, a re-analysis of a previous gait experiment, and our model suggests that in isolation, reinforcement-based and error-based processes respectively boost and suppress exploration. When acting in concert, we found that reinforcement-based and error-based processes interact by mutually opposing one another. Finally, we found that those with Parkinson's disease had decreased exploration when receiving reinforcement feedback, supporting the notion that compromised reinforcement-based processes reduces the ability to explore new motor actions. Understanding the unique and interacting roles of reinforcement-based and error-based processes may help to inform neurorehabilitation paradigms where it is important to discover new and successful motor actions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".